Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:54 AM - Re: Rear fuse vents (Russell Daves)
2. 07:32 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (John Jessen)
3. 07:51 AM - Re: Band Saw (Larry Rosen)
4. 08:27 AM - Re: Band Saw (Dave Leikam)
5. 09:06 AM - Re: Band Saw (Rick)
6. 09:06 AM - Subaru (John Hasbrouck)
7. 09:18 AM - Re: Subaru (James Hein)
8. 09:24 AM - Re: Subaru ()
9. 10:56 AM - Re: Band Saw (Bob Leffler)
10. 10:59 AM - Re: Subaru (JOHN STARN)
11. 11:21 AM - Re: Subaru (JOHN STARN)
12. 11:24 AM - Re: Subaru (John W. Cox)
13. 01:09 PM - Re: Band Saw (Dave Leikam)
14. 02:03 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Jesse Saint)
15. 02:07 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Jesse Saint)
16. 02:34 PM - Re: Subaru (Jesse Saint)
17. 03:05 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (David M.)
18. 03:40 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Tim Olson)
19. 03:59 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
20. 04:04 PM - Re: Band Saw (John Jessen)
21. 04:29 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
22. 04:37 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
23. 04:41 PM - Re: Eggenfellner ()
24. 04:49 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
25. 04:52 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (JOHN STARN)
26. 05:02 PM - Re: Band Saw (Patrick Pulis)
27. 05:04 PM - Re: Subaru (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
28. 05:12 PM - Panel Cutting (McGANN, Ron)
29. 05:13 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (David McNeill)
30. 05:15 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
31. 05:19 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (jdalton77)
32. 05:19 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (jdalton77)
33. 05:19 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Jesse Saint)
34. 05:28 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
35. 05:31 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
36. 05:53 PM - Compare Engine Quoted Stats (Jesse Saint)
37. 06:00 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Tim Olson)
38. 06:17 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (JOHN STARN)
39. 06:30 PM - Re: Band Saw (johngoodman)
40. 06:33 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (JOHN STARN)
41. 06:49 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (David M.)
42. 06:51 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
43. 06:54 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Bill and Tami Britton)
44. 07:20 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (John W. Cox)
45. 07:38 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (David McNeill)
46. 07:44 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Kelly McMullen)
47. 07:51 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Kelly McMullen)
48. 08:39 PM - Fuselage options (preset flaps) (Jae Chang)
49. 08:46 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Les Kearney)
50. 09:07 PM - Re: Fighter pilot? (bob.kaufmann)
51. 10:38 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dave Leikam)
52. 10:44 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dave Leikam)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rear fuse vents |
Actually they work pretty well. Alex De Dominicis alex@rvtraining.com
has some neat handles that he has fitted to the inside and tells me that
soon he will have them for sale.
Russ Daves
N710RV - 76 hours since first flight
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Les:
I would love to go an alternate route. I would love for Subies to make
it
big so we have some competition. But for me, there are three reasons
why
I'll pass on this one.
First and foremost, Jan. He has responded to posts from myself and
others
in a non-rational way, eschewing facts, and denigrating my and other's
legitimate questions. This was a few years ago and maybe things have
changed, but it was such a bad personal experience that I have been
turned
off ever since.
Second, I've rebuilt car engines, and consider myself handy with a
wrench,
but not nearly knowledgeable enough to trouble shoot something that
would be
truly experimental. Maybe his FWF packages will be up to snuff, but at
least for me the Lycoming route would be less an unknown to the experts
around me, of which there are plenty.
Third, every time I hear the flying stories from Tim or others, their
performance envelopes, I'm fine with what they are getting. More than
fine.
I don't have numbers for the Subie, and because of #1 reason, don't
trust
what information I would get.
I sincerely hope that those who go the Subie route will be able to puff
out
their feathers and strut around in unmitigated glee with their
accomplishments, because we need an alternative, and for leading the
way,
they deserve that success. I might have been one of their group if not
for
the 1st reason above. I just don't trust the organization, and trust in
this case is huge. I want to be proven wrong. So, in an odd manner,
I'm
rooting for the success of all those who are trying the Subie route.
One thing's for sure, no one should be flaming anyone on this topic. We
should all be finding ways to improve what we fly behind, whether in
terms
of performance, reliability, cost, etc. There have been some
exceptional
attempts to show the rotary engine as an alternative in RV-8's, but that
has
come out a wash to the Lycomings. But, at least it was tried and
tested. I
would love to see a diesel. I would love to see Honda come up with
something. I don't really care if there's a turbine, but, hey, that has
appeal to some. Let's keep trying new things and supporting those who
try.
But facts, nothing but the facts, for all of our sakes. The less
obfuscation, the better.
John Jessen
#40328 (9 days more of buildus interruptus purgatory)
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Steve
I am intrigued by your decision to go with the Egg engine. Let me first
say
that my only a/c engine experience is behind a Lyc O-360 engine. I have
had
to deal with cylinder replacements, oil pump impellor ad=92s and hollow
crank
AD. Over the years I have seen many crankshaft ADs published for may
similar
engines. I am a bit worried that a shiny new IO-540 may be prone to
=93manufacturing=94 problems as well. Aviation seems to be the only
place where
significant engine QC issues can become the owners problem. In my view
Ads
are no different from an auto manufacturers recall and the manufacturer
should be liable (but that is an entirely different rant).
The idea of a modern water cooled engine is appealing except that I
would be
concerned about post purchase support and maintenance. When I open the
hood
of my Honda Accord I just shake my head and hope I don=92t mix the
windshield
fluid and oil filler caps. I expect that this would be the same for a
Subaru engine. Are the Egg engines materially different from what you
would
find in a Subaru and how do you plan to deal with maintenance issues?
Parenthetically, I did have a 1994 Subaru Legend that had engine issues
when
an O2 sensor (*I think*) malfunctioned. I wouldn=92t want the same
problem in
the air. Then again I have had mag problems in the air so maybe the
risks
are level overall=85..
Your insights would be most appreciated.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643
PS: For the other flavours of Egg engines already in the air, have
predicted
performance stats been achieved?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
millstees@ameritech.net
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
-Les:
I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He has 14
engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the December-January
time
frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other engines sold for the
RV-10,
are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or better away from flying,
however,
I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and will probably be the first RV-10
with
the Subaru engine to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first
airplane to fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has delivered
14
RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief posts on the
list
from last month. Does anyone have anything new to report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/N
avi
gator?RV10-List
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
"http://www.aeroelectric.com"www.aeroelectric.com
"http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na
vig
ator?RV10-List
12/2/2006
9:39 PM
--
12/2/2006
9:39 PM
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Make sure you can get a metal cutting blade (one with many teeth) for
the band saw you are considering. I have the 12" variable speed Harbor
Freight band saw. As with most Harbor Freight tools you get good value
but questionable quality, especially with electric tools. When I first
got my band saw, the variable speed controller did not work (this part
was quickly replaced). After a year of use one of the drive wheels
cracked and it took over 6 months to get a replacement part. As usual
you get what you pay for. If I were to do it again I am not sure what I
would do. You loose a lot of functionality by only having a 9" throat
and no variable speed, but a 12" name brand would be at least 3x the
harbor freight cost.
Larry Rosen
#356
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I think you can get by with an inexpensive one OK for the most part.
> That said, it is actually nice to have variable speed, I used it
> a lot, and it is also very very nice to have a 12" or larger throat.
> I had times when I even couldn't cut a piece to length because 12"
> was too short, but I think it would have been a lot harder with 9".
> A 9" would absolutely be a worthy tool, but this is a case where
> larger is probably better if you have space and can find it affordable.
> I didn't start with a bandsaw initially, but it turned into one of
> my favorite tools in the shop, and now that it's at the hanger I'm
> thinking I need another one for the house. Just bought a nice 10"
> drill press for the hanger tonight for $55 (demo model closeout),
> so I can bring my junky old crapsman home from the hanger. Tools
> are addicting.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Bob Leffler wrote:
>>
>> I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive
>> Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm.
>>
>> Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the
>> 300-400 rpm
>> range?
>>
>> Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure
>> how
>> long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being
>> cut off
>> is?
>>
>> I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor
>> Freight.
>> It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What
>> brand/model would you recommend?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have found that a good old fine toothed carbide power miter saw works
really well for many of the cuts. Apply pressure slowly. I also have a 12"
sears band saw which I like.
Dave Leikam
40496
tailcone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw
>
> Make sure you can get a metal cutting blade (one with many teeth) for the
> band saw you are considering. I have the 12" variable speed Harbor
> Freight band saw. As with most Harbor Freight tools you get good value
> but questionable quality, especially with electric tools. When I first
> got my band saw, the variable speed controller did not work (this part was
> quickly replaced). After a year of use one of the drive wheels cracked
> and it took over 6 months to get a replacement part. As usual you get
> what you pay for. If I were to do it again I am not sure what I would do.
> You loose a lot of functionality by only having a 9" throat and no
> variable speed, but a 12" name brand would be at least 3x the harbor
> freight cost.
>
> Larry Rosen
> #356
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> I think you can get by with an inexpensive one OK for the most part.
>> That said, it is actually nice to have variable speed, I used it
>> a lot, and it is also very very nice to have a 12" or larger throat.
>> I had times when I even couldn't cut a piece to length because 12"
>> was too short, but I think it would have been a lot harder with 9".
>> A 9" would absolutely be a worthy tool, but this is a case where
>> larger is probably better if you have space and can find it affordable.
>> I didn't start with a bandsaw initially, but it turned into one of
>> my favorite tools in the shop, and now that it's at the hanger I'm
>> thinking I need another one for the house. Just bought a nice 10"
>> drill press for the hanger tonight for $55 (demo model closeout),
>> so I can bring my junky old crapsman home from the hanger. Tools
>> are addicting.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Bob Leffler wrote:
>>>
>>> I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive
>>> Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm.
>>>
>>> Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400
>>> rpm
>>> range?
>>>
>>> Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure
>>> how
>>> long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being cut
>>> off
>>> is?
>>>
>>> I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor
>>> Freight.
>>> It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What
>>> brand/model would you recommend?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My Delta has worked like a champ...get a 59-1/2" 18 TPI blade and follow the alignment
directions and it will cut like budda, tip #1....let the saw do the work
and it will hold a nice straight line, force it and you will fight it to keep
it going straight.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
How many Egg Subarus are flying in other than -10 experimentals and what is
their track record? Eggenfeller has been around a while, enough that some
track record should be available regarding service and support. The -10
installation is pure speculation until enough are flying.
#40264
John Hasbrouck
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Its on their website <http://eggenfellneraircraft.com/>
*ENGINES SOLD *
RV - 2 SEATS 389
RV - 10 17
SPORTSMAN-Glastar 59
CH-801 22
MUSTANG II 1
TUNDRA 3
LEGACY FG 1
LANCAIR 360 5
GLASAIR 5
Interesting, eh?
-Jim 40384
John Hasbrouck wrote:
>
> How many Egg Subarus are flying in other than -10 experimentals and
> what is their track record? Eggenfeller has been around a while,
> enough that some track record should be available regarding service
> and support. The -10 installation is pure speculation until enough
> are flying.
>
> #40264
> John Hasbrouck
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John:
There are almost 400 RV's flying with Eggenfellner Subarus. See their web
site at www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Hasbrouck
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Subaru
How many Egg Subarus are flying in other than -10 experimentals and what is
their track record? Eggenfeller has been around a while, enough that some
track record should be available regarding service and support. The -10
installation is pure speculation until enough are flying.
#40264
John Hasbrouck
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Interesting.......
I have a 12" power miter saw. What the longest cut that I'll need to make?
My saw can cut a 2x6 with no problems. Are there any cuts that have to be
longer than 6"?
Thanks,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw
I have found that a good old fine toothed carbide power miter saw works
really well for many of the cuts. Apply pressure slowly. I also have a 12"
sears band saw which I like.
Dave Leikam
40496
tailcone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw
>
> Make sure you can get a metal cutting blade (one with many teeth) for the
> band saw you are considering. I have the 12" variable speed Harbor
> Freight band saw. As with most Harbor Freight tools you get good value
> but questionable quality, especially with electric tools. When I first
> got my band saw, the variable speed controller did not work (this part was
> quickly replaced). After a year of use one of the drive wheels cracked
> and it took over 6 months to get a replacement part. As usual you get
> what you pay for. If I were to do it again I am not sure what I would do.
> You loose a lot of functionality by only having a 9" throat and no
> variable speed, but a 12" name brand would be at least 3x the harbor
> freight cost.
>
> Larry Rosen
> #356
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> I think you can get by with an inexpensive one OK for the most part.
>> That said, it is actually nice to have variable speed, I used it
>> a lot, and it is also very very nice to have a 12" or larger throat.
>> I had times when I even couldn't cut a piece to length because 12"
>> was too short, but I think it would have been a lot harder with 9".
>> A 9" would absolutely be a worthy tool, but this is a case where
>> larger is probably better if you have space and can find it affordable.
>> I didn't start with a bandsaw initially, but it turned into one of
>> my favorite tools in the shop, and now that it's at the hanger I'm
>> thinking I need another one for the house. Just bought a nice 10"
>> drill press for the hanger tonight for $55 (demo model closeout),
>> so I can bring my junky old crapsman home from the hanger. Tools
>> are addicting.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Bob Leffler wrote:
>>>
>>> I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive
>>> Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm.
>>>
>>> Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400
>>> rpm
>>> range?
>>>
>>> Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure
>>> how
>>> long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being cut
>>> off
>>> is?
>>>
>>> I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor
>>> Freight.
>>> It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What
>>> brand/model would you recommend?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
400 RV's "flying" ? ? . I personally know of hundreds of flying RV's and TWO
are Subarus BUT I only live in So. Calif., have been to OSH only once, so
there may be 10% RV Subie's elsewhere in the world. KABONG Do Not
Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <millstees@ameritech.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru
>
> John:
>
> There are almost 400 RV's flying with Eggenfellner Subarus. See their web
> site at www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
>
> Steve Mills
> RV-10 40486 Slow-build
> Naperville, Illinois
> finishing fuselage
> Do Not Archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"SOLD", delivered AND flying ? ? ? Three very different things..
KABONG Do Not Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Hein
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Subaru
Its on their website
ENGINES SOLD RV - 2 SEATS 389
RV - 10 17
SPORTSMAN-Glastar 59
CH-801 22
MUSTANG II 1
TUNDRA 3
LEGACY FG 1
LANCAIR 360 5
GLASAIR 5
Interesting, eh?
-Jim 40384
John Hasbrouck wrote:
<jhasbrouck@woh.rr.com>
How many Egg Subarus are flying in other than -10 experimentals and
what is their track record? Eggenfeller has been around a while, enough
that some track record should be available regarding service and
support. The -10 installation is pure speculation until enough are
flying.
#40264
John Hasbrouck
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Steve, please take no offence by this contrarian view, but the numbers
posted may not necessarily mean 400 Flying. We tend to buy into what we
want to believe. Could that be 400 interested potential buyers'; 400
pledges to purchase; 400 deposits'; 400 final payments received at the
factory; 400 delivered to customers or 400 installed and actually flying
safely? It's what ever number you want to buy into as FACT.
Egg is known for being great on marketing propaganda and short on
temper. I have spent many hours with Atkins (from here in the Pacific
NW), reviewed his quality, studied his track record and abandoned that
particular solution. You will I am sure, blaze a more successful path.
Tim has made an excellent argument for all that will eventually go this
route. Competition. Anyone looked at the percentage price increase in
Lycosaurus IO-540D4A5s since Vans announcement in 2003. I am surprised
the Chinese haven't entered the knockoff market like they did for
kidneys. Wow. I for one commend all who are willing to expand the
envelope of knowledge and pursue Alternate Engines. Van considers this
action - Hot Rodding, and with it, the associated insurance and
financial risks. He makes a compelling "Talking Head" for Lycoming. One
he would and does endorse. Sorry Continental. I have patiently waited
for Thielert to perfect a six cylinder, 261+ HP turbo-diesel but looks
are deceiving. Competition is a great thing. Many things positive come
from competition. For every single winner there is always a large team
of unsuccessful competitors wishing.
A close friend of mine and fellow A & P student (years ago) build's
nationally recognized "Winning" Subie race engines for auto racing.
They are certainly not, nor will ever be Bullet Proof. They wind high
rpm, they are cheap and easy to work on with less parts (which tend to
fail at similar rates to other internal combustion contraptions).
Whether the production run is 10 Cogsworth, 100 F-1 Mercedes or
1,000,000 Ford's the reliability (or quality) has nothing (little) to
due with number constructed. High production runs have no bearing on
quality, only cost of components installed. To the contrary. In a
previous life, I had a close friend whose job was to re-engineer the
bearings in Alternators to reduce the cost by $0.07 per unit. Seems,
1,000,000 meant real savings and why through money into wrecking yard
inventory.
The purpose of an aircraft engine is a narrow rpm performance band with
tremendous torque at the low end followed by dual, independent ignition
sources. Hence my personal desire for a diesel with turbo-driven
induction. Diesel fuel seems to have universal, international appeal.
We American's tend to be addicted to AVGAS. MOGAS is out of the
question. IMHO.
The aviation field is littered with the passion of alternate engine
pursuit. Orenda anyone? This is always a great issue for guys like Dave
Hertner. I will be listening on the side. Aye?
John Cox
the Turbanator #40600
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
millstees@ameritech.net
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru
John:
There are almost 400 RV's flying with Eggenfellner Subarus. See their
web
site at www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I am about to start riveting my tailcone, but I cannot think of more than a
few parts I had to cut much wider than a few inches. The miter sure makes
the angles easy. You have to be very careful on the thin stock like the
tailcone stiffeners. Support the part well on each side of the cut and
proceed slowly. I had been using my bandsaw and noticed my miter sitting
quietly when I thought, yeah - that would work good! And so far it is. If
I can cut it on the miter I will, if not I use the band saw or whatever else
will work.
Dave Leikam
40496
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Leffler" <rvmail@thelefflers.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Band Saw
>
> Interesting.......
>
> I have a 12" power miter saw. What the longest cut that I'll need to
> make?
> My saw can cut a 2x6 with no problems. Are there any cuts that have to be
> longer than 6"?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Leikam
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:26 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw
>
>
> I have found that a good old fine toothed carbide power miter saw works
> really well for many of the cuts. Apply pressure slowly. I also have a
> 12"
>
> sears band saw which I like.
>
> Dave Leikam
> 40496
> tailcone
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw
>
>
>>
>> Make sure you can get a metal cutting blade (one with many teeth) for the
>> band saw you are considering. I have the 12" variable speed Harbor
>> Freight band saw. As with most Harbor Freight tools you get good value
>> but questionable quality, especially with electric tools. When I first
>> got my band saw, the variable speed controller did not work (this part
>> was
>
>> quickly replaced). After a year of use one of the drive wheels cracked
>> and it took over 6 months to get a replacement part. As usual you get
>> what you pay for. If I were to do it again I am not sure what I would
>> do.
>
>> You loose a lot of functionality by only having a 9" throat and no
>> variable speed, but a 12" name brand would be at least 3x the harbor
>> freight cost.
>>
>> Larry Rosen
>> #356
>>
>> Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you can get by with an inexpensive one OK for the most part.
>>> That said, it is actually nice to have variable speed, I used it
>>> a lot, and it is also very very nice to have a 12" or larger throat.
>>> I had times when I even couldn't cut a piece to length because 12"
>>> was too short, but I think it would have been a lot harder with 9".
>>> A 9" would absolutely be a worthy tool, but this is a case where
>>> larger is probably better if you have space and can find it affordable.
>>> I didn't start with a bandsaw initially, but it turned into one of
>>> my favorite tools in the shop, and now that it's at the hanger I'm
>>> thinking I need another one for the house. Just bought a nice 10"
>>> drill press for the hanger tonight for $55 (demo model closeout),
>>> so I can bring my junky old crapsman home from the hanger. Tools
>>> are addicting.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob Leffler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive
>>>> Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm.
>>>>
>>>> Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400
>>>> rpm
>>>> range?
>>>>
>>>> Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure
>>>> how
>>>> long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being cut
>>>> off
>>>> is?
>>>>
>>>> I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor
>>>> Freight.
>>>> It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What
>>>> brand/model would you recommend?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Only one comment I had from your reply, most of which I agree with. You
say, " And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
aircraft engine parts." I agree with your point, but I doubt very much that
there are many aircraft engines that get close to TBO at full power. They
are made to go 2000 hours at relatively high power settings compared to
cars, but if you are consistently running the at full power (ie, air
racing), I very highly doubt that it will truly reach TBO. I could be
wrong, but I think the average plane that is used for Cross Country flying
probably gets the majority of its hours at 65% power, if that, and most
planes probably get the majority of their hours at or below 75%. In
agreement with your point, however, most car engines get the majority of
their hours probably around 20% power (if that high). Take a car to the
racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
engine.
Again, I agree with your overall point on that one, but not with the actual
statement.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
On 12/2/06, millstees@ameritech.net <millstees@ameritech.net> wrote:
> I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple of
> items to the discussion.
>
> 1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all aircraft
> engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced.
So advanced that NO ONE is making an engine that works in and
aircraft, runs on any form of gasoline that makes more power per pound
with better bfsc than Continental and Lycoming.
> 2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to go
> fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a
Subaru,
> you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would.
So use multi-grade oil and install a Tanis or Reiff system.
> 3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so I
> am ready for a change to something reliable.
Hmm, thousands others haven't had same problems...perhaps your sample
isn't statistically significant.
> 4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a
> problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost.
And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
aircraft engine parts.
I don't see very many 20 year old Subies running around, but there
sure are a lot of 20 year old aircraft engines flying around.
> 5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty compared
> to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be
> developing 220HP at 16,000 ft.
Turbos aren't known for reliability either, especially when run much
over 75% for any length of time.
But it is all about choice.
--
4:36 PM
--
4:36 PM
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Well said.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Les:
I would love to go an alternate route. I would love for Subies to make
it
big so we have some competition. But for me, there are three reasons
why
I'll pass on this one.
First and foremost, Jan. He has responded to posts from myself and
others
in a non-rational way, eschewing facts, and denigrating my and other's
legitimate questions. This was a few years ago and maybe things have
changed, but it was such a bad personal experience that I have been
turned
off ever since.
Second, I've rebuilt car engines, and consider myself handy with a
wrench,
but not nearly knowledgeable enough to trouble shoot something that
would be
truly experimental. Maybe his FWF packages will be up to snuff, but at
least for me the Lycoming route would be less an unknown to the experts
around me, of which there are plenty.
Third, every time I hear the flying stories from Tim or others, their
performance envelopes, I'm fine with what they are getting. More than
fine.
I don't have numbers for the Subie, and because of #1 reason, don't
trust
what information I would get.
I sincerely hope that those who go the Subie route will be able to puff
out
their feathers and strut around in unmitigated glee with their
accomplishments, because we need an alternative, and for leading the
way,
they deserve that success. I might have been one of their group if not
for
the 1st reason above. I just don't trust the organization, and trust in
this case is huge. I want to be proven wrong. So, in an odd manner,
I'm
rooting for the success of all those who are trying the Subie route.
One thing's for sure, no one should be flaming anyone on this topic. We
should all be finding ways to improve what we fly behind, whether in
terms
of performance, reliability, cost, etc. There have been some
exceptional
attempts to show the rotary engine as an alternative in RV-8's, but that
has
come out a wash to the Lycomings. But, at least it was tried and
tested. I
would love to see a diesel. I would love to see Honda come up with
something. I don't really care if there's a turbine, but, hey, that has
appeal to some. Let's keep trying new things and supporting those who
try.
But facts, nothing but the facts, for all of our sakes. The less
obfuscation, the better.
John Jessen
#40328 (9 days more of buildus interruptus purgatory)
do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Steve
I am intrigued by your decision to go with the Egg engine. Let me first
say
that my only a/c engine experience is behind a Lyc O-360 engine. I have
had
to deal with cylinder replacements, oil pump impellor ad=92s and hollow
crank
AD. Over the years I have seen many crankshaft ADs published for may
similar
engines. I am a bit worried that a shiny new IO-540 may be prone to
=93manufacturing=94 problems as well. Aviation seems to be the only
place where
significant engine QC issues can become the owners problem. In my view
Ads
are no different from an auto manufacturers recall and the manufacturer
should be liable (but that is an entirely different rant).
The idea of a modern water cooled engine is appealing except that I
would be
concerned about post purchase support and maintenance. When I open the
hood
of my Honda Accord I just shake my head and hope I don=92t mix the
windshield
fluid and oil filler caps. I expect that this would be the same for a
Subaru engine. Are the Egg engines materially different from what you
would
find in a Subaru and how do you plan to deal with maintenance issues?
Parenthetically, I did have a 1994 Subaru Legend that had engine issues
when
an O2 sensor (*I think*) malfunctioned. I wouldn=92t want the same
problem in
the air. Then again I have had mag problems in the air so maybe the
risks
are level overall=85..
Your insights would be most appreciated.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643
PS: For the other flavours of Egg engines already in the air, have
predicted
performance stats been achieved?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
millstees@ameritech.net
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
-Les:
I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He has 14
engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the December-January
time
frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other engines sold for the
RV-10,
are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or better away from flying,
however,
I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and will probably be the first RV-10
with
the Subaru engine to fly. I am, obviously, looking forward to the first
airplane to fly, and am expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has delivered
14
RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief posts on the
list
from last month. Does anyone have anything new to report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/N
avi
gator?RV10-List
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.kitlog.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/N
avi
gator?RV10-List
-- No virus found in this Edition. Release Date: 12/2/2006 9:39 PM
--
12/2/2006 9:39 PM
"http://www.aeroelectric.com"www.aeroelectric.com
"http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na
vig
ator?RV10-List
12/3/2006
4:36 PM
--
12/3/2006
4:36 PM
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Very well said.
If the 400 number we used to decide, then we could probably conclude that
Innodyn is a success story. Since the RV-10 number is 17 and it was stated
this week that none have actually been delivered, then can we assume that
the 400 number is more like the number of deposits and non-cancelled order,
of which Innodyn must still have non-negative numbers on.
I would have to agree that the quantity manufactured does not mean quality,
just relative price to what it would be with few manufactured. And, yes,
the lack of desire to have some parts last longer than the life of the car.
You see a whole lot higher percentage of 40's and 50's PA-14's still flying
than 40's and 50's "any specific model of car" running. Obviously, very few
if any still have the original engine, but the fact that they are still
flying means that a higher percentage of the original parts were made to
last a little closer to forever.
Another reason for an airplane engine would be that car engines are more
likely built with a if-it-breaks-down-de-u-iz mentality rather than a
if-it-breaks-down-whe-iz-u mentality.
I too would love to see the Subie prove to be a reliable -10 engine. That
benefits everybody building or flying a -10, I think.
Is it safe to say that the main three reasons to go other than (I)O-540
Parallel Valve normally aspirate would be speed, initial cost and
non-conformism (is that a word?)? Subie-builders seems to be either 2, 3 or
both. That turbo-10 down under seems to be follow number 1. Of course,
number 2 would be IMHO the best reason and the most valid, with number 1
requiring engineering to be widely valid and accepted. With this in mind,
both for future Subie and Lycoming owners, "Go, Subie, Go!"
I don't like to flame anyway, although I may flame someone who goes for a V8
like is installed in N425HP that has been sitting in our hangar for a year
and other hangars for quite a few years waiting for a complete flyable
engine and computer system, having spent by now way more than it would have
cost to put in a Continental twin turbo IO-550 (but the downside of that is
the project of actually getting it into the air would have been way too
short for these owners, I guess).
Back to Subie, I can't wait to see some actual numbers (project cost, fuel
economy, speed), so hurry guys. Those flying so far have time to type
because they are flying. We need you Subie-builders to finish quickly for
the benefit of all.
Speaking of alternative engines, anybody know the cost of the Superior
XP-400 and XP-400SRE? A turbo-XP-400 might fit all 3 reasons enough to get
a widespread following.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru
Steve, please take no offence by this contrarian view, but the numbers
posted may not necessarily mean 400 Flying. We tend to buy into what we
want to believe. Could that be 400 interested potential buyers'; 400
pledges to purchase; 400 deposits'; 400 final payments received at the
factory; 400 delivered to customers or 400 installed and actually flying
safely? It's what ever number you want to buy into as FACT.
Egg is known for being great on marketing propaganda and short on
temper. I have spent many hours with Atkins (from here in the Pacific
NW), reviewed his quality, studied his track record and abandoned that
particular solution. You will I am sure, blaze a more successful path.
Tim has made an excellent argument for all that will eventually go this
route. Competition. Anyone looked at the percentage price increase in
Lycosaurus IO-540D4A5s since Vans announcement in 2003. I am surprised
the Chinese haven't entered the knockoff market like they did for
kidneys. Wow. I for one commend all who are willing to expand the
envelope of knowledge and pursue Alternate Engines. Van considers this
action - Hot Rodding, and with it, the associated insurance and
financial risks. He makes a compelling "Talking Head" for Lycoming. One
he would and does endorse. Sorry Continental. I have patiently waited
for Thielert to perfect a six cylinder, 261+ HP turbo-diesel but looks
are deceiving. Competition is a great thing. Many things positive come
from competition. For every single winner there is always a large team
of unsuccessful competitors wishing.
A close friend of mine and fellow A & P student (years ago) build's
nationally recognized "Winning" Subie race engines for auto racing.
They are certainly not, nor will ever be Bullet Proof. They wind high
rpm, they are cheap and easy to work on with less parts (which tend to
fail at similar rates to other internal combustion contraptions).
Whether the production run is 10 Cogsworth, 100 F-1 Mercedes or
1,000,000 Ford's the reliability (or quality) has nothing (little) to
due with number constructed. High production runs have no bearing on
quality, only cost of components installed. To the contrary. In a
previous life, I had a close friend whose job was to re-engineer the
bearings in Alternators to reduce the cost by $0.07 per unit. Seems,
1,000,000 meant real savings and why through money into wrecking yard
inventory.
The purpose of an aircraft engine is a narrow rpm performance band with
tremendous torque at the low end followed by dual, independent ignition
sources. Hence my personal desire for a diesel with turbo-driven
induction. Diesel fuel seems to have universal, international appeal.
We American's tend to be addicted to AVGAS. MOGAS is out of the
question. IMHO.
The aviation field is littered with the passion of alternate engine
pursuit. Orenda anyone? This is always a great issue for guys like Dave
Hertner. I will be listening on the side. Aye?
John Cox
the Turbanator #40600
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
millstees@ameritech.net
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru
John:
There are almost 400 RV's flying with Eggenfellner Subarus. See their
web
site at www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
--
4:36 PM
--
4:36 PM
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
I don't know where y'all get the opinion that car engines "aren't made
to run at full power." Ford and Chevy both say theirs are. If you
maintain adequate cooling, they will run forever at high power
settings. Longest test I've heard of was a Chevy (LS-1?) that was run
continuously for over 12 months, with routine cycling of power
settings. No worse treatment can be heaped upon an engine.
David M.
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>Only one comment I had from your reply, most of which I agree with. You
>say, " And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
>aircraft engine parts." I agree with your point, but I doubt very much that
>there are many aircraft engines that get close to TBO at full power. They
>are made to go 2000 hours at relatively high power settings compared to
>cars, but if you are consistently running the at full power (ie, air
>racing), I very highly doubt that it will truly reach TBO. I could be
>wrong, but I think the average plane that is used for Cross Country flying
>probably gets the majority of its hours at 65% power, if that, and most
>planes probably get the majority of their hours at or below 75%. In
>agreement with your point, however, most car engines get the majority of
>their hours probably around 20% power (if that high). Take a car to the
>racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>engine.
>
>Again, I agree with your overall point on that one, but not with the actual
>statement.
>
>Do not archive.
>
>Jesse Saint
>I-TEC, Inc.
>jesse@itecusa.org
>www.itecusa.org
>W: 352-465-4545
>C: 352-427-0285
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
>Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 10:25 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>On 12/2/06, millstees@ameritech.net <millstees@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple of
>>items to the discussion.
>>
>>1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all aircraft
>>engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced.
>>
>>
>So advanced that NO ONE is making an engine that works in and
>aircraft, runs on any form of gasoline that makes more power per pound
>with better bfsc than Continental and Lycoming.
>
>
>>2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to go
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a
>>
>>
>Subaru,
>
>
>>you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would.
>>
>>
>So use multi-grade oil and install a Tanis or Reiff system.
>
>
>
>>3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so I
>>am ready for a change to something reliable.
>>
>>
>Hmm, thousands others haven't had same problems...perhaps your sample
>isn't statistically significant.
>
>
>>4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a
>>problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost.
>>
>>
>And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
>aircraft engine parts.
>I don't see very many 20 year old Subies running around, but there
>sure are a lot of 20 year old aircraft engines flying around.
>
>
>>5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty compared
>>to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be
>>developing 220HP at 16,000 ft.
>>
>>
>Turbos aren't known for reliability either, especially when run much
>over 75% for any length of time.
>
>But it is all about choice.
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Now that's what I want....en engine that will actually run "forever". ;)
Wouldn't that make the rebuild issue non-existant?
<LOL> I wish my old suburban had heard it wasn't ever supposed to have
thrown that rod. ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
David M. wrote:
> I don't know where y'all get the opinion that car engines "aren't made
> to run at full power." Ford and Chevy both say theirs are. If you
> maintain adequate cooling, they will run forever at high power
> settings. Longest test I've heard of was a Chevy (LS-1?) that was run
> continuously for over 12 months, with routine cycling of power
> settings. No worse treatment can be heaped upon an engine.
>
> David M.
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>> Only one comment I had from your reply, most of which I agree with. You
>> say, " And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
>> aircraft engine parts." I agree with your point, but I doubt very much that
>> there are many aircraft engines that get close to TBO at full power. They
>> are made to go 2000 hours at relatively high power settings compared to
>> cars, but if you are consistently running the at full power (ie, air
>> racing), I very highly doubt that it will truly reach TBO. I could be
>> wrong, but I think the average plane that is used for Cross Country flying
>> probably gets the majority of its hours at 65% power, if that, and most
>> planes probably get the majority of their hours at or below 75%. In
>> agreement with your point, however, most car engines get the majority of
>> their hours probably around 20% power (if that high). Take a car to the
>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>> engine.
>>
>> Again, I agree with your overall point on that one, but not with the actual
>> statement.
>>
>> Do not archive.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> I-TEC, Inc.
>> jesse@itecusa.org
>> www.itecusa.org
>> W: 352-465-4545
>> C: 352-427-0285
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
>> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 10:25 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/06, millstees@ameritech.net <millstees@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple of
>>> items to the discussion.
>>>
>>> 1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all aircraft
>>> engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced.
>>>
>> So advanced that NO ONE is making an engine that works in and
>> aircraft, runs on any form of gasoline that makes more power per pound
>> with better bfsc than Continental and Lycoming.
>>
>>> 2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to go
>>>
>>
>>
>>> fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a
>>>
>> Subaru,
>>
>>> you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would.
>>>
>> So use multi-grade oil and install a Tanis or Reiff system.
>>
>>
>>> 3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so I
>>> am ready for a change to something reliable.
>>>
>> Hmm, thousands others haven't had same problems...perhaps your sample
>> isn't statistically significant.
>>
>>> 4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a
>>> problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost.
>>>
>> And aren't designed to operate 2000 hours at full power, unlike
>> aircraft engine parts.
>> I don't see very many 20 year old Subies running around, but there
>> sure are a lot of 20 year old aircraft engines flying around.
>>
>>> 5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty compared
>>> to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be
>>> developing 220HP at 16,000 ft.
>>>
>> Turbos aren't known for reliability either, especially when run much
>> over 75% for any length of time.
>>
>> But it is all about choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Take a car to the
> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
> engine.
Hi Jesse,
That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
show that there is any truth to it.
Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for
those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.
I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told
me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.
So, any real data that I can base my decision on?
Thanks,
-Dj
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a Delta. 9". Works for 90% of the parts that you will need the saw
for. Otherwise, pick up a variable speed Dremel and use the cut off wheels
to do the cutting. I know of at least one RV-8 builder who bought and loved
the Sears variable speed 12". Whatever you choose, this becomes your metal
saw. No wood. As a long time wood worker, take my advice and don't even
think about combining your beautiful wood band saw for the metal work. Get
a cheap table top for your metal, buy a blade with lots of teeth and narrow,
and move on.
Did I say, "Move on!" Oh, my goodness. I'm becoming one of those......
John Jessen
#40328 (9 more days of Buildus Interruptus purgatory)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Leffler
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Band Saw
I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive
Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm.
Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400 rpm
range?
Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure how
long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being cut off
is?
I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor Freight.
It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What
brand/model would you recommend?
Thanks,
Bob
--
9:39 PM
--
9:39 PM
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Not delivered just sold, they are supposed to be shipped late 06/early
07.
No final data, or flying stat's as of yet from the 10, but I should have
mine done ASAP and be able to give everyone reports as it goes along.
Dan
N289DT
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has delivered
14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief posts on
the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new to report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is
CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit.
Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+
individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology.
Dan
Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
DeRouchey
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
What is it the nay-sayers should be surprised about?
Sticking to the hard facts:
I am flying an RV-10 with the Lyc IO-540 260HP as Van recommends.
The power is wonderful. The reliability unquestionable. The engine is
extremely smooth. The engine drops into place with a proven
installation.
If the issue is economy, and you consider the Lycoming thirsty, pull the
throttle out to 8.5 gph and the TAS will settle at 150mph true. When its
time to fast and far then climb up to 10-11K with full throttle and fuel
flow will settle to 12gph at 195mph true.
If the issue is power then consider I can takeoff with a very light load
and without crossing the end of a 4000' runway perform a hard, climbing
turn (poor mans Immelman) to downwind and settle at pattern altitude at
mid-field. Or, during my last cross-country we climbed with full tanks,
2 souls, and some baggage from 7500 to 11500 in 4 minutes. Class B
airspace? No worries.
Perhaps the issue is initial expense. If you are able to save money on
the initial engine installation then you will have an RV-10 that is
worth that much less when its time to sell. The number of RV-10 buyers
for used aircraft with an Egg engine could dance on the head of a pin.
Buy Lycoming and the money is only parked for a while and can be
redeemed later upon sale.
Maybe the real issue is the Egg folks are rebels at heart. This is good
as I am a rebel myself. However, I don't mess with the airframe nor
engine. You can be a great rebel by painting the airframe in LSD
rainbows or Playboy nudes. Tile the inside. Pull out the back seats and
install a shallow spa. Glass in a row of upside down surfboard fins
along the fuselage spine and paint sharks teeth under the cowl. Go for
it - I love creativity.
Maybe the issue is you hate Lycoming. Everybody has bad experiences. I
can't help you with this one.
So ... help me get it, but stick to facts.
Bill DeRouchey
billderou@yahoo.com
Flying with a few pit stops
millstees@ameritech.net wrote:
-Les:
I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines".
He has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the
December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other
engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or
better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and
will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am,
obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am
expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:30 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that
he has delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of
brief posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new
to report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
Admin.
page,
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I was accused earlier of not talking facts, so lets talk some facts. If you
drive a Subaru, or any other car @ 55MPH in 1 to 5 hour segments, for
100,000 miles, that equals out to 1818 hours on the engine. The people
currently flying the Subaru, say they cruise @ 1900 RPM, with full throtle,
using the 2.02/1 PSRU, that means you are running the engine 3900 RPM. 100%
power is 6900 RPM, this means that you are running @ 57% power. Yes, during
takeoff, you are running higher RPM, similar to passing in a car. All, well
within the manufacturer guidelines. So where are the running the engine into
the ground ideas coming from? I have a Chrysler, that has 125000 miles on
it, and other than oil changes, and regular maintainance, I have done
nothing out of the ordinary to the engine. I don't think that is all that
exceptional, to a well maintained car or airplane running a car engine.
When is the last time you heard of anyone running an aircraft engine to 1900
hours, without atleast some cylinder work or a top overhaul. yes , I know
some have done it, but I bet it is the exception, and in a car, it is more a
rule in the newer high compression engines everyone is running. Modern car
engines have progressed to the point where they are more or less problem
free in the first 100K to 125K miles, because of all the R&D, where the air
cooled engines have hardly changed in the last 50 years.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Take a car to the
> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
> engine.
Hi Jesse,
That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
show that there is any truth to it.
Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for
those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.
I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told
me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.
So, any real data that I can base my decision on?
Thanks,
-Dj
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This list of items also goes into my thinking and the number one reason
is that I flew behind one and loved it. Once mine is up and flying I
welcome all to come and fly with me, and you will be converted. Flying
behind and Eggenfellner is indescribable and an experience that must be
felt. I intend to offer a ride to as many as possible, and get more
people to convert, what I feel the fear is not that Lycoming is better
than Subaru, rather Lycoming is the big boy on the block, and something
new is always scary. But glass was scary when it first came out, no it
is second nature, so soon Subaru will be second nature and we will
finally have competition in a space that traditionally has not had any
competition.
Lets just keep it open for thought and see how it turns out, I do not
bash anyone for the way they do things, because they might just be
better, non traditional sure, but better just the same. Only time will
tell, and that time slot is getting smaller and smaller.
Dan
N289DT (RV10E)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
millstees@ameritech.net
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
I would like to second everything that Jim just said, and add a couple
of
items to the discussion.
1. 2006 technology. They make more car engines in a year than all
aircraft
engines ever made combined, so the R&D is far advanced.
2. I live in Illinois. Right now it is 20deg outside. If I wanted to
go
fly a Lycoming, I would have to do a pre-heat...not necessary with a
Subaru,
you just hit the starter and it goes, just like a car would.
3. I owned an Arrow, and had nothing but cylinder and crank problems, so
I
am ready for a change to something reliable.
4. Parts come from Subaru, not Eggenfellner, so availibility is not a
problem, and do not have the inflated aviation cost.
5. It is turbo-charged, so even if there is a small power penalty
compared
to the IO-540, it is more than made up as you climb...I'll still be
developing 220HP at 16,000 ft.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Hein
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Perhaps I can explain my reasons for considering an Eggenfellner
powerplant for my RV-10
First of all, these are my opinions only, so DO NOT FLAME! It seems that
every time someone mentions a non-Lycoming powerplant, they get hammered
with responses that can be summed up as "If you don't use Lycoming,
there's something wrong with you".
I have my reasons, you have yours.
Here are my reasons:
1. $50,000 (approx) for a new Lycoming? I can't afford it. Used? I'd
rather not have to go researching about the life history and what's
needed (like a crank) to get the engine reliable. $27,000 or so for a
complete Eggenfellner FWF package is very competitive.
2. 230HP is more than enough for myself; I'm used to flying 152's for
heavens sake! Anything over 800FPM climb rate will please me.
3. Liquid cooling does have its advantages, including tighter
tolerances, almost no oil burning, no shock cooling, no complex baffling
because "#4 cylinder runs hot", etc.
4. Weight is almost the same as a Lycoming.
5. I do *all* the work on all my equipment, cars, engines, etc. I do not
want an A&P to touch it - They break enough things already :)
6. Mixture and prop control are pretty much all automatic; Less pilot
workload.
7. Rebuild cost is much less. What's a Lycoming rebuild cost - $20,000
? With the Eggenfellner, just replace the entire engine block, crank,
pistons, rings and all for around $3,000
8. I do not care about resale value. I am building this plane only for
myself to enjoy - NOT TO RESELL.
9. I can always remove an Eggenfellner and put a Lycoming in its place
(with a new engine mount) later. Nothing prevents you from switching
powerplants later.
10. The Eggenfellner engines are *extremely* smooth; Much less
vibration.
11. Insurance costs are pretty much the same with the Eggenfellner
engine package as with Lycoming (due to Eggenfellner's reliable track
record)
Please don't bash those of us who are looking at alternatives; You
Lycoming people have your reasons for going with Lycoming, and we have
no problem with that.
-Jim 40384, Riveting bottom wing skins (slowly)
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Hey Bill, I'm not going to join a pile-on about Subies. For the
record
> I basically agree, but still encourage anyone willing to step forth.
> I personally wouldn't buy the finished plane because it isn't what
> I'd want, but I meet others who would now and then. If the promises
> deliver, I'd think it would be a viable "alternate" engine, but I
would
> doubt that in the end any of the benefits or deficits would be all
> that big one way or another.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in
straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's.
If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear
view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em
hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check
any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled"
themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken
the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not
Archive
BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR
money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like
"reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Take a car to the
>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>> engine.
>
>
> Hi Jesse,
> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
> show that there is any truth to it.
>
>> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a Ryobi band saw, however I engaged a local saw works to make up
three specific blades, for cutting thin aluminium sheet, aluminium
angle/stock and plywood. The replacement blades are industrial quality
and induction hardened and are far superior to the blades supplied by
Ryobi. I had them made for AUS$18 each and they thew in a 1kg block of
solid lubricant wax to keep the blade lubricated and cool when cutting
stock. The baldes are interchangeable and cut through everything like a
hot knife through butter. Just contact your local saw works, you won't
regret it.
Patrick Pulis
Adelaide, South Australia
Build #40299 (Started on Wings)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Leffler [mailto:rvmail@thelefflers.com]
Sent: Sunday, 3 December 2006 12:20 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Band Saw
I see that many have band saws. Can I get by with an inexpensive
Ryobi/Rigid/Delta for $99? These all seem to run 3000 rpm.
Or do I really need a variable speed to drop things down to the 300-400
rpm range?
Is the distance between the blade and the saw critical? I'm not sure
how long a typical piece being cut is and how long the stock it's being
cut off is?
I see quite a few people have a variable speed band saw from Harbor
Freight.
It appears that it has been discontinued by Harbor Freight. What
brand/model would you recommend?
Thanks,
Bob
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
To the best of my knowledge it is 400 commitments to buy, not flying,
there are several hundred under construction. We would have to ask Jan
for the number flying with them. I had asked several years ago, but many
have flown since then, but it is definitely not 10% of the flying RV's
that are out there.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Subaru
400 RV's "flying" ? ? . I personally know of hundreds of flying RV's and
TWO
are Subarus BUT I only live in So. Calif., have been to OSH only once,
so
there may be 10% RV Subie's elsewhere in the world. KABONG Do Not
Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <millstees@ameritech.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru
>
> John:
>
> There are almost 400 RV's flying with Eggenfellner Subarus. See their
web
> site at www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
>
> Steve Mills
> RV-10 40486 Slow-build
> Naperville, Illinois
> finishing fuselage
> Do Not Archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tip de jour,
I was a little worried about cutting the holes in my instrument panel.
I have gone for a three screen GRT EFIS/EIS setup and only have about
1/8" to 1/4" to play with to clear the Left Hand Side EFIS from the
F1045L rib. For those to get to this point, here's how I tackled it.
1. transferred the initial panel design from E-panel builder to TurboCAD
2. printed the panel layout onto clear A4 (8 1/2x11") Avery labels,
3. cut some perspex to match the LHS of panel and stuck on the label
4. cut the GRT efis hole in the perspex to the template on the label and
mounted the EFIS
5. clecoed the perspex with efis to the fwd fuse and checked rib
clearance. (I needed to drop the EFIS another 3/16" to clear the rib).
6. transferred the revised measurements to turboCAD and reprinted on
transparent labels.
7. stuck the labels to the panel
8 cut the round holes with a 2 1/4" hole saw on drill press. Panel
clamped to press table to prevent movement.
9. cut the rectangular holes with a jigsaw (saber saw to you guys) and
hand filed to the line.
The final cutting/filing of the panel took less than a Sunday arvo and
I'm really happy with the results. I can recommend the trick with the
clear adhesive labels to get an excellent view of how things appear on
the panel, and then use as a cutting template. - and for a small fee I
can tell you precisely how far up from the bottom of the panel to mount
that EFIS ;->
hope it's useful
cheers,
Ron
#187 'bout to mount instruments
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
We go through this alternative engine thing every few months. I think
the real question is whether you like to fly or build(experiment). The
one certainty in all this is that the average builder will add at least
a calendar year to the project minimum. Having built a Glastar using a
Lycosaurus, I looked at Crossflow (aka FBN), Innodyne, Deltahawk, Zoche
, and Mistral (partner even visited the factory). I decided to use
another Lycosaurus rather than develop a motor mount, exhaust system,
cooling system, cowling etc. I want to fly rather than build.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R.
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is
CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit.
Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+
individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology.
Dan
Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
DeRouchey
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:22 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
What is it the nay-sayers should be surprised about?
Sticking to the hard facts:
I am flying an RV-10 with the Lyc IO-540 260HP as Van recommends.
The power is wonderful. The reliability unquestionable. The engine is
extremely smooth. The engine drops into place with a proven
installation.
If the issue is economy, and you consider the Lycoming thirsty, pull
the throttle out to 8.5 gph and the TAS will settle at 150mph true. When
its time to fast and far then climb up to 10-11K with full throttle and
fuel flow will settle to 12gph at 195mph true.
If the issue is power then consider I can takeoff with a very light
load and without crossing the end of a 4000' runway perform a hard,
climbing turn (poor mans Immelman) to downwind and settle at pattern
altitude at mid-field. Or, during my last cross-country we climbed with
full tanks, 2 souls, and some baggage from 7500 to 11500 in 4 minutes.
Class B airspace? No worries.
Perhaps the issue is initial expense. If you are able to save money on
the initial engine installation then you will have an RV-10 that is
worth that much less when its time to sell. The number of RV-10 buyers
for used aircraft with an Egg engine could dance on the head of a pin.
Buy Lycoming and the money is only parked for a while and can be
redeemed later upon sale.
Maybe the real issue is the Egg folks are rebels at heart. This is
good as I am a rebel myself. However, I don't mess with the airframe nor
engine. You can be a great rebel by painting the airframe in LSD
rainbows or Playboy nudes. Tile the inside. Pull out the back seats and
install a shallow spa. Glass in a row of upside down surfboard fins
along the fuselage spine and paint sharks teeth under the cowl. Go for
it - I love creativity.
Maybe the issue is you hate Lycoming. Everybody has bad experiences. I
can't help you with this one.
So ... help me get it, but stick to facts.
Bill DeRouchey
billderou@yahoo.com
Flying with a few pit stops
millstees@ameritech.net wrote:
-Les:
I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10 Engines". He
has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in the
December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other
engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or
better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and
will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am,
obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am
expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:30 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has
delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief
posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new to
report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There are many articles on Subaru and high power runs, they have the
current high speed and time record. I know there is a re-print on the
Egg site, and several searches on Google reveal that auto engines in
high power applications are very reliable, Liquid cooling equals tighter
tolerances, and better heat control, which are the what cause most early
part failure.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Take a car to the
> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
regular
> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
> engine.
Hi Jesse,
That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back
that up?
No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
show that there is any truth to it.
Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it
difficult for
those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.
I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that
told
me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.
So, any real data that I can base my decision on?
Thanks,
-Dj
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
My neighbor races these Corvettes, with the LS6 engines.
He says the reason they kill the engines is not because the stock engine is
unreliable, or because it's being run at 100% power. He says it's because
they max out the engine components and customize it so much with hi-comp
cylinders and so many other mods that it makes the engine over-rev for those
15 seconds. If they kept it stock it would be slower but never blow up.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway),
> in straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy
> V-8's. If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed
> in rear view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two
> spare engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to
> run'em hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick.
> BUT that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it,
> check any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road,
> 1/4 mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that
> "disassembled" themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high
> RPM's only quicken the coming of the end and that terrible silence that
> follows. KABONG Do Not Archive
>
> BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays
> YOUR money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't
> like "reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go
> wrong.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Take a car to the
>>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
>>> regular
>>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>>> engine.
>>
>>
>> Hi Jesse,
>> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
>> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
>> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
>> show that there is any truth to it.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Dj
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Well, I'll admit that I have been running a Lycoming O-320 for about 2400
hours, almost always at 90%+ power on a PA28 (it's only 150HP) with zero
cylinder or major engine work. Just regular maintenance and the occasional
component (mag, pumps, etc) over the years. I've just put it in for
overhaul. Guess I've been lucky!
HOWEVER, I think you're right about the auto engine also. Most new auto
engines are inherently reliable.
I'm not ready for an engine yet, but I'll be looking hard at the Egg, and
some others.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: <millstees@ameritech.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> I was accused earlier of not talking facts, so lets talk some facts. If
> you
> drive a Subaru, or any other car @ 55MPH in 1 to 5 hour segments, for
> 100,000 miles, that equals out to 1818 hours on the engine. The people
> currently flying the Subaru, say they cruise @ 1900 RPM, with full
> throtle,
> using the 2.02/1 PSRU, that means you are running the engine 3900 RPM.
> 100%
> power is 6900 RPM, this means that you are running @ 57% power. Yes,
> during
> takeoff, you are running higher RPM, similar to passing in a car. All,
> well
> within the manufacturer guidelines. So where are the running the engine
> into
> the ground ideas coming from? I have a Chrysler, that has 125000 miles on
> it, and other than oil changes, and regular maintainance, I have done
> nothing out of the ordinary to the engine. I don't think that is all that
> exceptional, to a well maintained car or airplane running a car engine.
> When is the last time you heard of anyone running an aircraft engine to
> 1900
> hours, without atleast some cylinder work or a top overhaul. yes , I know
> some have done it, but I bet it is the exception, and in a car, it is more
> a
> rule in the newer high compression engines everyone is running. Modern
> car
> engines have progressed to the point where they are more or less problem
> free in the first 100K to 125K miles, because of all the R&D, where the
> air
> cooled engines have hardly changed in the last 50 years.
>
> Steve Mills
> RV-10 40486 Slow-build
> Naperville, Illinois
> finishing fuselage
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:58 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Take a car to the
>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>> engine.
>
>
> Hi Jesse,
> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
> show that there is any truth to it.
>
> Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it difficult for
> those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
> there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
> repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
> of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.
>
> I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that told
> me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
> quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
> also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.
>
> So, any real data that I can base my decision on?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And please don't get me wrong. I love the idea of water-cooled, unless I am
having someone shooting at me. I love the idea of a $3,000 overhaul. I
love the idea of turbo-charged power for a little more TAS at altitude. I
love the idea of bucking the price increases of Lycoming "because they can
because there are no other 'approved' engines for the RV-10". I love the
idea of saving $10K on the front end and using mogas instead of avgas. I
just don't have the guts to do it myself until I see a line of them at
Oshkosh.
Come on, Dan(and others), get that(those) plane(s) done.
Now, on the Diesel engine future. Does anybody have a good reason that it
costs $0.30 more at the pumps than 87 Unleaded? In Ecuador you can get
Diesel for $1.10 and Avgas costs upwards of $4. Some countries don't even
have anything except Diesel/Jet Fuel. I guess those countries don't have
enough demand to make a difference in the development. It certainly would
be nice to have a good Diesel-running engine available for the -10. Does
anybody have numbers on the energy per pound difference between Diesel and
100LL?
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in
straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's.
If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear
view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em
hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check
any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled"
themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken
the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not
Archive
BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR
money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like
"reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Take a car to the
>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>> engine.
>
>
> Hi Jesse,
> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
> show that there is any truth to it.
>
>> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
--
4:36 PM
--
4:36 PM
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Let me put in something here, while I agree engines at the track often
eat themselves, how many of these engines are stock and have not had any
work done to them to make them race worthy? I would bet all of the
engines you speak of have had something as mild as a CAM upgrade to a
full blown bore and NOS treatment. In those conditions running 100%
could cause major issues. But the Egg engine is stock, IE no change to
the CAM, No NOS system added for that last second push.
Like I said we can speculate all day, lets wait 5 more months or so, and
I will be able to give all of us a report on real numbers. So far my
build has not had very much additional work to it, in fact I would say
in the long run I will end up saving time by not having to worry about
baffling or many of the other FWF items that many Lycoming installs have
to be concerned with. But only time will tell, and as the engine is
delivered to me, I will make sure and document everything, and work with
third parties to verify everything I post, because I know nobody on this
list will take anybody at face value.
Can't we all just get along and push forward with the EXPERIMENTAL
aspect in our chosen hobby?
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway),
in
straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy
V-8's.
If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in
rear
view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to
run'em
hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it,
check
any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that
"disassembled"
themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only
quicken
the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do
Not
Archive
BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays
YOUR
money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't
like
"reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go
wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Take a car to the
>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
regular
>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>> engine.
>
>
> Hi Jesse,
> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples
to
> show that there is any truth to it.
>
>> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You are speaking from conjecture again. If you use the Eggenfellner FWF
you will not add much if any additional time to the build. Any other
YES, but not the Eggenfellner. It comes with everything that you would
have had to design for the others. This package is nicely engineered and
delivered ready to mount.
I will be flying very soon, at least I think it is a light at the end of
the tunnel and not a train running at me.
Dan
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
We go through this alternative engine thing every few months. I think
the real question is whether you like to fly or build(experiment). The
one certainty in all this is that the average builder will add at least
a calendar year to the project minimum. Having built a Glastar using a
Lycosaurus, I looked at Crossflow (aka FBN), Innodyne, Deltahawk, Zoche
, and Mistral (partner even visited the factory). I decided to use
another Lycosaurus rather than develop a motor mount, exhaust system,
cooling system, cowling etc. I want to fly rather than build.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R. <mailto:LloydDR@wernerco.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is
CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit.
Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+
individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology.
Dan
Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
DeRouchey
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:22 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
What is it the nay-sayers should be surprised about?
Sticking to the hard facts:
I am flying an RV-10 with the Lyc IO-540 260HP as Van
recommends.
The power is wonderful. The reliability unquestionable. The
engine is extremely smooth. The engine drops into place with a proven
installation.
If the issue is economy, and you consider the Lycoming thirsty,
pull the throttle out to 8.5 gph and the TAS will settle at 150mph true.
When its time to fast and far then climb up to 10-11K with full throttle
and fuel flow will settle to 12gph at 195mph true.
If the issue is power then consider I can takeoff with a very
light load and without crossing the end of a 4000' runway perform a
hard, climbing turn (poor mans Immelman) to downwind and settle at
pattern altitude at mid-field. Or, during my last cross-country we
climbed with full tanks, 2 souls, and some baggage from 7500 to 11500 in
4 minutes. Class B airspace? No worries.
Perhaps the issue is initial expense. If you are able to save
money on the initial engine installation then you will have an RV-10
that is worth that much less when its time to sell. The number of RV-10
buyers for used aircraft with an Egg engine could dance on the head of a
pin. Buy Lycoming and the money is only parked for a while and can be
redeemed later upon sale.
Maybe the real issue is the Egg folks are rebels at heart. This
is good as I am a rebel myself. However, I don't mess with the airframe
nor engine. You can be a great rebel by painting the airframe in LSD
rainbows or Playboy nudes. Tile the inside. Pull out the back seats and
install a shallow spa. Glass in a row of upside down surfboard fins
along the fuselage spine and paint sharks teeth under the cowl. Go for
it - I love creativity.
Maybe the issue is you hate Lycoming. Everybody has bad
experiences. I can't help you with this one.
So ... help me get it, but stick to facts.
Bill DeRouchey
billderou@yahoo.com
Flying with a few pit stops
millstees@ameritech.net wrote:
-Les:
I think that should read "about to deliver 14 RV-10
Engines". He has 14 engines sold, mine among them, for delivering in
the December-January time frame. To the best of my knowledge, the other
engines sold for the RV-10, are for '07 delivery. My -10 is a year or
better away from flying, however, I think Dan Lloyd is much closer, and
will probably be the first RV-10 with the Subaru engine to fly. I am,
obviously, looking forward to the first airplane to fly, and am
expecting all the nay sayers to be suprised.
Steve Mills
RV-10 40486 Slow-build
Naperville, Illinois
finishing fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 2:30 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I
noticed that he has delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only
a couple of brief posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have
anything new to report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
h
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
h
ref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compare Engine Quoted Stats |
We should all just be in a chat room right now with all of these posts.
For the information and for the archives, can you give us some quoted
stats
on the Subie:
Engine Cost
Prop Cost
FWF Cost (I assume including Engine Mount that accepts the Van=92s nose
gear
leg)
Expected TBO
Max HP w/ Turbo
Max HP if w/o Turbo
HP output @ 10K
HP output @ 18K
Dual Ignition?
Weight compared to IO-540 (including all Egg recommended upgrades ' ie
second battery?)
No of Prop Blades
Electric Prop?
Cowl Cost
Fuel Options
Here are the stats on the IO-540 new:
Engine Cost - $39,300 - $43,500ish
Prop Cost - $6,000 Hartzell ~$8,000 MT
FWF Cost (I assume including Engine Mount that accepts the Van=92s nose
gear
leg) - $5,400 Push/Pull - $5,700? Quadrant
Expected TBO ' 2,000 Hours
Max HP w/ Turbo ' Normalized 260HP
Max HP if w/o Turbo ' 260HP
HP output @ 10K ' Somebody smarter than me would have to calculate
this
HP output @ 18K ' =93
Dual Ignition - Yes
Weight compared to IO-540 ' Roughly the same
No of Prop Blades ' 2-3
Electric Prop - No
Cowl Cost - anybody that had theirs held know this?
Fuel Options ' 100LL (maybe mogas with an O-540)
Please remove this do not archive tag on the reply.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
12/3/2006
4:36 PM
--
12/3/2006
4:36 PM
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe diesel has about 25% more power per
volume. Don't know by weight. I'm 100% sold on the idea of diesels
in cars and trucks. In airplanes I'm not 100% sure that I'd believe
they can get the vibration down to the same level as any other engine.
One egg comment touched off by Dan. He says "Cranshaft". Well, I
guess you're right there. But, it's a fairly known time period of
a known metallurgical change that was made that caused the bad
crankshafts for the most part, and additionally, it's the hotter
engines, that are upwards of 260HP that have the biggest problems.
So sure, cranks are a known possible issue with the lyc's.
But, I have a matching word for the auto conversions.... "PRSU".
From the sounds of past problems, it's just as, or probably more
likely to be a problem in the PRSU than it is with the rest of the
engine for many of the ones the company puts out.
Additionally, it's probably a long bit early to start quoting
longevity in the RV-10 version of the Egg engine, or for that
matter, any of the egg or other engines. Why? Well, how many
engines are there OUT there in the world flying, and how many have
even accumulated the hours required to make it to a pseudo-TBO?
There just isn't enough track record. This can work both for
and against your case. On one hand, you can't really pound your
fists and say the engines are more reliable and going to last longer.
on the other hand, nobody can really tell you that they're going
to blow up on you quicker either. So this definitely isn't a
dig. It's a complete unknown.
Oh, and it's you folks looking at the auto conversions that are
really putting the "EXPERIMENT" back in "experimental". With a kit
as proven as Van's kits, and engines with the track record of the
O/IO-540, it's much more fitting to be called "amateur built" in
their case....but "experimental" is kind of stretching it a bit.
I don't feel like I'm experimenting at all.
And, let's just hope that your experiment reaps some great rewards!
Sorry, I just can't stop yet....
One more thing about costs... With the engine cores being so cheap
for the subies and others, one has to wonder, why does the entire
FWF kit come very very close to the costs of doing it the "old
fashioned" way? Additionally, there probably will be a non-existant
time savings on future setups when the FWF kit is perfected, but
these days, those people will definitely stretch out their build
time. I know for sure those who are getting the James Cowl
are getting slowed down. (Not a dig on them at ALL) It's the
same as those of us who finished earlier in the pile....someone
has to do the debugging. So when you look more long-term, if Egg
is already charging similar prices for an engine setup, you can bet
that as time goes on, prices go up. On the other hand, with
the sudden increase in Lyc clone competition, there may be a day
when those "old" style engines actually start to come down in
price once 2 or 3 companies all sell the parts. I just doubt
that we'll see much of a spread in price between the two if we
look ahead a few years. If your PRSU holds up though, as you
noted, you may experience cheaper rebuilds.
I guess if there were a scorecard being kept, it'll be a while
before any points can be awarded for almost anything between
the various engines. We're actually *years*, and in fact,
*MANY* years, away from knowing the ultimate long-term reliability
on the new subies. How many years will it take the average builder
to put on 2500 hours??? The thing that's always shocked me about
homebuilt kits and engines is when you actually look at the NUMBERS
given in mags like "Kitplanes", it's shocking to see how few in
quantity and hours of both airframes and engines, there are.
There's just not enough good data to make meaningful statistics
out of.
Look at it this way.... people wonder if running ROP or LOP is
better for your engine. Well, buy an engine, run it to rebuild
using one method. Then rebuild it and run it to rebuild using
the other method. You should easily be able to have the answer
to which way is better in what, 25 years or so? ;) (if you can
maintain 200hrs/year....which I'll probably manage this year)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> And please don't get me wrong. I love the idea of water-cooled, unless I am
> having someone shooting at me. I love the idea of a $3,000 overhaul. I
> love the idea of turbo-charged power for a little more TAS at altitude. I
> love the idea of bucking the price increases of Lycoming "because they can
> because there are no other 'approved' engines for the RV-10". I love the
> idea of saving $10K on the front end and using mogas instead of avgas. I
> just don't have the guts to do it myself until I see a line of them at
> Oshkosh.
>
> Come on, Dan(and others), get that(those) plane(s) done.
>
> Now, on the Diesel engine future. Does anybody have a good reason that it
> costs $0.30 more at the pumps than 87 Unleaded? In Ecuador you can get
> Diesel for $1.10 and Avgas costs upwards of $4. Some countries don't even
> have anything except Diesel/Jet Fuel. I guess those countries don't have
> enough demand to make a difference in the development. It certainly would
> be nice to have a good Diesel-running engine available for the -10. Does
> anybody have numbers on the energy per pound difference between Diesel and
> 100LL?
>
> Do not archive.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> W: 352-465-4545
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
> Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in
> straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's.
> If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear
> view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
> engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em
> hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
> that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check
> any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
> mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled"
> themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken
> the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not
>
> Archive
>
> BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR
>
> money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like
> "reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Take a car to the
>>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>>> engine.
>>
>> Hi Jesse,
>> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
>> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
>> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
>> show that there is any truth to it.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>> -Dj
>
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
My current 'Vette is a '92 LT1 300HP 6 speed manual with 105,000 miles on
it. Runs great & passes smog with no problems. (except I did have to replace
a blown radiator hose at 103,000, glad that didn't happen at 12,000'). The
last engine I built to race was a new short block (from Chevrolet)1971 LT-1
(note the dash) required checking & turning down & exchanging 5 cranks, six
rods, 12 pistons etc because they would not "blueprint & balance" to proper
spec's for a 450HP, 350CI race engine. BUT I did have a 7,000 RPM limit
warning & a manual tranny to keep RPM's within the design limits & max power
range we pre-set.
If they are blowing engines because of over revving they need to change rear
end gear ratios to get max design RPM right at the end of the 15 seconds or
the 1/4 mile or the straight away, which ever comes first.
'92 will still do 104 in fourth & well under 15 seconds in the 1/4 mile,
well under. OH, on the road to 'Vegas at 75 or so it still gets 25+ MPG in
6th too. As Mohammad Ali usta say "It aint braggen if ya can do it" KABONG
Do Not Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
> ,
> My neighbor races these Corvettes, with the LS6 engines.
>
> He says the reason they kill the engines is not because the stock engine
> is unreliable, or because it's being run at 100% power. He says it's
> because they max out the engine components and customize it so much with
> hi-comp cylinders and so many other mods that it makes the engine over-rev
> for those 15 seconds. If they kept it stock it would be slower but never
> blow up.
>
> Jeff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>>
>> Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway),
>> in straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy
>> V-8's. If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being
>> viewed in rear view mirrors.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm getting ready to drill my tail cone so most of the multitude of parts I need
to fabricate are done (for now). My Ryobi $99 from the Home Depot aviation department
has worked well with the metal cutting blade they sell separately. I
agree with the others that the 9" throat is a little confining, but snips, hacksaws,
and dremels can fill the gap.
It's not a great bandsaw but it gets the job done. Secretly I wish I had a good
compound miter saw with a metal cutting blade.
Best tool recommendation I've gotten from this site? The #30 and #40 reamer bits
from Avery. Best bit I've ever used!
John
--------
#40572 Empennage - Starting tailcone.
N711JG reserved
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=78926#78926
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
"But the Egg engine is stock". "STOCK" ? ?.
Not even re-worked to the extent as a AD'ed Lyco or Cont. or a VW ? ?
There has got to be a engine builder out there that can still "blueprint &
balance" a Subaru, with all the 4 banger hot rodders trying to run with the
big dogs. See I can be nice...didn't say rice burner but once. Sorry it's
just my old Harley days coming back. 8*) KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
You can thank the higher price of diesel in the US on the EPA.
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>And please don't get me wrong. I love the idea of water-cooled, unless I am
>having someone shooting at me. I love the idea of a $3,000 overhaul. I
>love the idea of turbo-charged power for a little more TAS at altitude. I
>love the idea of bucking the price increases of Lycoming "because they can
>because there are no other 'approved' engines for the RV-10". I love the
>idea of saving $10K on the front end and using mogas instead of avgas. I
>just don't have the guts to do it myself until I see a line of them at
>Oshkosh.
>
>Come on, Dan(and others), get that(those) plane(s) done.
>
>Now, on the Diesel engine future. Does anybody have a good reason that it
>costs $0.30 more at the pumps than 87 Unleaded? In Ecuador you can get
>Diesel for $1.10 and Avgas costs upwards of $4. Some countries don't even
>have anything except Diesel/Jet Fuel. I guess those countries don't have
>enough demand to make a difference in the development. It certainly would
>be nice to have a good Diesel-running engine available for the -10. Does
>anybody have numbers on the energy per pound difference between Diesel and
>100LL?
>
>Do not archive.
>
>Jesse Saint
>I-TEC, Inc.
>jesse@itecusa.org
>www.itecusa.org
>W: 352-465-4545
>C: 352-427-0285
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
>Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway), in
>straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy V-8's.
>If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in rear
>view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
>engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to run'em
>hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
>that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it, check
>any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
>mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that "disassembled"
>themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only quicken
>the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do Not
>
>Archive
>
>BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays YOUR
>
>money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't like
>"reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go wrong.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Take a car to the
>>>racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a regular
>>>basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>>>engine.
>>>
>>>
>>Hi Jesse,
>>That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
>>No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
>>thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
>>show that there is any truth to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>-Dj
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
If you are looking for real data, don't expect to get it from Jan.
About a year ago I was giving SERIOUS consideration to Egg's engine for
the RV-10. I finally abandoned the idea for several reasons.
First, like others have said, Jan has an issue with his temper. He
fly's off the handle in an irrational way when you push him for data.
He sees it as a personal attack or something. He attempted to throw me
off his list for asking straight forward questions around his designs,
his HP values he was quoting, and his complete inability to meet his
promised delivery dates on almost every production cycle. Also others
that have purchased his engine have had parts show up months later,
missing, or not really a complete FWF. Jan himself loves to make a
point that every production run is a brand new design. As he says his
engine is for experimenters, nothing wrong with that as long as you know
what you are getting into.
With the H6 RV-10 engine he has redesigned his redrive, went from a
design with a supercharger as an optional component to a turbo charger
as a requirement, and is at least 6 months behind his promised delivery
date from his "special" he ran last Christmas. You will also never have
an engine that has actual HP numbers because he refuses to run one of
his engines on a dyno. Several of the guys that bought his earlier
engines said they thought it was producing far less than what Jan
advertised. Jan's answer was the prop was limiting the engine and
shortly after this he switched engines. The final straw that got me
ejected from his list, which he says isn't for perspective customers,
was asking him why the HP numbers for the RV-10 engine kept changing and
for the better even though his design wasn't changing. His answer was
that it always was projected to produce 250HP and that he can say it
will be between 230-250HP.
Guys, these are all FACTS and I have said it before, make sure you do
your due diligence before you jump on the bandwagon. I admire guys like
Dan who are putting their faith in an alternative engine package. I'm
just not willing to do it and it's almost entirely because of the guy
that has the only viable alternative engine at this time. I want
straight answers and he has never given me a single one. But he was
quick to ban me from his group and from buying his engine when I asked
for straight answers.
Oh ya, you won't find most of my questions and the banter back and
forth with Jan in his list because he went into the archives and deleted
them. I however still have them in my own archive and I would be happy
to share them with anyone.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Take a car to the
> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
regular
> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
> engine.
Hi Jesse,
That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back
that up?
No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
show that there is any truth to it.
Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it
difficult for
those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.
I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that
told
me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.
So, any real data that I can base my decision on?
Thanks,
-Dj
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Glad to hear you're getting close, Dan. If you'd happen to have some
install pics when you get the engine, I would surely like to see some
(as I've not written off the Egg yet!!!). I guess my procrastinating
nad lack of build time isn't all that bad for reasons like this.
Hopefully the engine package will be all Jan and 16 others hope it is!!!
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd, Daniel R.
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Not delivered just sold, they are supposed to be shipped late 06/early
07.
No final data, or flying stat's as of yet from the 10, but I should
have mine done ASAP and be able to give everyone reports as it goes
along.
Dan
N289DT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 3:30 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Hi
While checking out the Eggenfellner site I noticed that he has
delivered 14 RV10 engines thus far. I have seen only a couple of brief
posts on the list from last month. Does anyone have anything new to
report?
Cheers
Les
#40643
Do not archive
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Living almost next door to the engineer who single-handedly tried to
solve the PSRU problem with the V-8s and being a front man for Dave
Hertner, I can tell you this is no easy road. Every alternative has
trade-offs with power, system weight, induction airflow required,
vibration, and serviceability. Millions have been bled along the
shoulder of the road and no one has arrived unscathed on the Lancair
V-8. That includes N425HP and ArchAngel in Jesse's hangar.
As William Curtis can attest, I did raise the subject of LOP/ROP and
have first hand knowledge on the cost of running LOP with those volatile
variables. I don't drink Kool-aid, but have a solid grasp of the
positives and negatives of that pursuit. Ask Jim Hergert the cost of his
six top-end replacements at 280 hours since NEW for LOP on his shiny new
Continental TSIO-550E or my friend Hal Morley for his six tops at 720
hours SMOH on his Beechcraft F-33 with Continental IO-520BB. The pot of
gold is the significant fuel savings when running below 60% power "In
Cruise" and Correctly leaning for well managed LOP. Prudent builders
discuss and understand these tradeoffs.
"Experimental" can be different than "Amateur" Built. A Plans followed,
Lycoming Powered, RV-10 can easily become a true Amateur built. It's a
thrilling concept to wrap your knuckles around. CNC match drilled is
sure a great advance. The engine price is startling though. Are you
listening Mr. Delamarter? We need and embrace good ole American
Competition.
I seem to remember the RVator with a Head to Head "Climb and Cruise"
contest between the Lycosaurus and the Subie last year. There were
pluses and minus on both. The second generation James Cowl is going to
help in the weaknesses of the Subie... yes there are some. Some of them
may not be able to hear that challenge due to a long term loss of
hearing. An alternate engine will always be a true Experimental. My
hats off to those who will fly before me into the Wild blue.
And Jesse, all of your questions were clearly posted on Eggs Website
today... if you believe... that is.
The insurance rates are a dart throw for the first twenty four months
that are used by insurance underwriters. Being able to get it is not the
same as affording it. The proof will be in the cost of insurability over
the 4 POBs on any claim loss that arises - sans powerplant failure. As
Tim has wisely pointed out, that will be some time from now. I want to
protect the investment of the remaining 614 builders yet to fly their
completed birds from Lancair like catastrophes. Deem's if your
listening, I won't give up on Proficiency Training regardless of a
rotary or a piston slapper discussion.
John Cox
Do not Archive for insurance reasons
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
Additionally, it's probably a long bit early to start quoting
longevity in the RV-10 version of the Egg engine, or for that
matter, any of the egg or other engines. Why? Well, how many
engines are there OUT there in the world flying, and how many have
even accumulated the hours required to make it to a pseudo-TBO?
There just isn't enough track record. This can work both for
and against your case. On one hand, you can't really pound your
fists and say the engines are more reliable and going to last longer.
on the other hand, nobody can really tell you that they're going
to blow up on you quicker either. So this definitely isn't a
dig. It's a complete unknown.
Oh, and it's you folks looking at the auto conversions that are
really putting the "EXPERIMENT" back in "experimental". With a kit
as proven as Van's kits, and engines with the track record of the
O/IO-540, it's much more fitting to be called "amateur built" in
their case....but "experimental" is kind of stretching it a bit.
I don't feel like I'm experimenting at all.
Look at it this way.... people wonder if running ROP or LOP is
better for your engine. Well, buy an engine, run it to rebuild
using one method. Then rebuild it and run it to rebuild using
the other method. You should easily be able to have the answer
to which way is better in what, 25 years or so? ;) (if you can
maintain 200hrs/year....which I'll probably manage this year)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
If I understand this banter, an EGG FWF kit for the 10 has not been
delivered yet. Is an EGG flying on their prototype 10? If not I stand by my
"add a year to your project" and that does not include the additional
experimenting getting the cooling and other additional testing complete
after first flight.
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> If you are looking for real data, don't expect to get it from Jan.
> About a year ago I was giving SERIOUS consideration to Egg's engine for
> the RV-10. I finally abandoned the idea for several reasons.
>
> First, like others have said, Jan has an issue with his temper. He
> fly's off the handle in an irrational way when you push him for data.
> He sees it as a personal attack or something. He attempted to throw me
> off his list for asking straight forward questions around his designs,
> his HP values he was quoting, and his complete inability to meet his
> promised delivery dates on almost every production cycle. Also others
> that have purchased his engine have had parts show up months later,
> missing, or not really a complete FWF. Jan himself loves to make a
> point that every production run is a brand new design. As he says his
> engine is for experimenters, nothing wrong with that as long as you know
> what you are getting into.
>
> With the H6 RV-10 engine he has redesigned his redrive, went from a
> design with a supercharger as an optional component to a turbo charger
> as a requirement, and is at least 6 months behind his promised delivery
> date from his "special" he ran last Christmas. You will also never have
> an engine that has actual HP numbers because he refuses to run one of
> his engines on a dyno. Several of the guys that bought his earlier
> engines said they thought it was producing far less than what Jan
> advertised. Jan's answer was the prop was limiting the engine and
> shortly after this he switched engines. The final straw that got me
> ejected from his list, which he says isn't for perspective customers,
> was asking him why the HP numbers for the RV-10 engine kept changing and
> for the better even though his design wasn't changing. His answer was
> that it always was projected to produce 250HP and that he can say it
> will be between 230-250HP.
>
> Guys, these are all FACTS and I have said it before, make sure you do
> your due diligence before you jump on the bandwagon. I admire guys like
> Dan who are putting their faith in an alternative engine package. I'm
> just not willing to do it and it's almost entirely because of the guy
> that has the only viable alternative engine at this time. I want
> straight answers and he has never given me a single one. But he was
> quick to ban me from his group and from buying his engine when I asked
> for straight answers.
>
> Oh ya, you won't find most of my questions and the banter back and
> forth with Jan in his list because he went into the archives and deleted
> them. I however still have them in my own archive and I would be happy
> to share them with anyone.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:58 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Take a car to the
>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
> regular
>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>> engine.
>
>
> Hi Jesse,
> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back
> that up?
> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples to
> show that there is any truth to it.
>
> Too many opinions and no actual data presented makes it
> difficult for
> those of us that have not yet made an engine decision. If anyone out
> there has real world information about car engines needing a lot of
> repairs and replacements when running at 75% or better power for lengths
> of time, I'd greatly appreciate if you would forward the data to us.
>
> I have a friend that is an engine designer/race car driver that
> told
> me he didn't think there would be any major troubles using a good
> quality car engine like the Subaru in an aircraft application. That
> also is just his opinion, but a fairly well educated one.
>
> So, any real data that I can base my decision on?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Dj
>
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
The 50 yr old technology had ZERO crankshaft problems. The only Lyc
crank problems are from 1996 to approx 2002, because the current
management thought they could save some money or something with
different metallurgy. If you can get a crank from the 1980's it will
last forever. I'm flying behind one right now of early '80s vintage,
never been turned or polished, still standard dimension bearings. No
ADs, no nothing on it.
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
> The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is
> CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit.
> Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+
> individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology.
> Dan
> Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate.
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Pure BS. Please cite how much of price is due to environmental
requirements. All of the price difference with mogas is taxes and market
demand. Please explain why some airports can sell Jet A for 40 cents
less than 100LL, while others sell it for 40 cents more than 100LL. It
sure as hell isn't from EPA requirements. Unlike gasoline, there is a
national standard for diesel(excluding Kaleefornica). If anything,
diesel prices have dropped over the summer while the ultra low sulfur
requirement has phased in. So yeah, blame the tree huggers.
David M. wrote:
> You can thank the higher price of diesel in the US on the EPA.
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>> And please don't get me wrong. I love the idea of water-cooled, unless I am
>> having someone shooting at me. I love the idea of a $3,000 overhaul. I
>> love the idea of turbo-charged power for a little more TAS at altitude. I
>> love the idea of bucking the price increases of Lycoming "because they can
>> because there are no other 'approved' engines for the RV-10". I love the
>> idea of saving $10K on the front end and using mogas instead of avgas. I
>> just don't have the guts to do it myself until I see a line of them at
>> Oshkosh.
>>
>> Come on, Dan(and others), get that(those) plane(s) done.
>>
>> Now, on the Diesel engine future. Does anybody have a good reason that it
>> costs $0.30 more at the pumps than 87 Unleaded? In Ecuador you can get
>> Diesel for $1.10 and Avgas costs upwards of $4. Some countries don't even
>> have anything except Diesel/Jet Fuel. I guess those countries don't have
>> enough demand to make a difference in the development. It certainly would
>> be nice to have a good Diesel-running engine available for the -10. Does
>> anybody have numbers on the energy per pound difference between Diesel and
>> 100LL?
>>
>> Do not archive.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> I-TEC, Inc.
>> jesse@itecusa.org
>> www.itecusa.org
>> W: 352-465-4545
>> C: 352-427-0285
>>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuselage options (preset flaps) |
I will be putting in my order for the fuselage kit this week. I noticed there is
only the 1 option for pre-set flaps. Am I wrong for assuming most will opt for
the option?
Also, I scanned the Section 40 PDF on tim's site, but I didn't see any mention
of the option. Just curious exactly what the difference is with this option.
Just seems like a strange thing to be optional.
Jae
#40533
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Kelly
My Pa28/180C has a circa 1966 crank, the engine was last overhauled in 1979.
I expect that the -10 will be the last plane I own and so I *want* a new
engine. My fear is that I will drop $40k+ into a new Lycoming and then find
out that I have a major AD to deal with - at my expense of course.
Whatever I do, safety is at the absolute top of my list. Engine wise, the
question becomes which will be safer - a Subaru engine or a Lycoming engine.
I am not smart enough yet to know the answer to this question but all the
responses to my earlier query have given me a lot to ponder.
Cheers
Les
RV10 # 40643
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
The 50 yr old technology had ZERO crankshaft problems. The only Lyc
crank problems are from 1996 to approx 2002, because the current
management thought they could save some money or something with
different metallurgy. If you can get a crank from the 1980's it will
last forever. I'm flying behind one right now of early '80s vintage,
never been turned or polished, still standard dimension bearings. No
ADs, no nothing on it.
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
> The only comment I have when someone responds in this manner is
> CRANKSHAFT and lawsuit.
> Enough said about unquestionable reliability, there are 5000+
> individuals that would argue on this case for 50 year old technology.
> Dan
> Waiting for the facts to show themselves before we speculate.
>
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It starts moving really fast around 40 to 50 seconds. Hard to get over 60.
Bob K
Old school fighter pilot.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fighter pilot?
Ahh but I do remember a time when they engaged planes with a red star and
had to stay away from a certain the border. KABONG Do Not Archive
PS: I've passed this on to at least a dozen pilots. A coupla are old fighter
types.
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Kearney <mailto:kearney@shaw.ca>
Hmmm
I guess the USAF is concerned about fighter pilots having to engage red
boxes in arial combat!
-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On
A relative sent this to me..don't know if it's true, but fun to try. Can't
get beyond 18 seconds on this myself. Hopefully that's good enough to be an
RV-10 pilot.
Good luck,
Sean Blair
#40225
http://tinyurl.com/56t9u
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Why Subaru? Why not BMW or NorthStar?
I was at Reno a few years ago with my son. Dago Red won and set some track
records. I am sure they ran at 100% power throughout the race, but not
stock power. 3000 HP Merlin? Water injection? A lot of B-17s would have
been lost on the way to Berlin if the Mustang's engines would have been
built and run the same.
I am not an engine mechanic. But I do believe someone has got to develop a
better alternative to the Lycs. I will install one if I have to. But I
would rather not. I love "State of the art." "Latest and Greatest." I
will definitely come see your engine when you get it Steve. I have a 2002
Chevy Avalanche with 103,000 miles. Never a problem. Never even changed
the plugs! Chevy says I don't have to yet!! Never low on oil between
changes every 4500 miles. Starts instantly with no priming in well below
zero WI weather. I use it to pull my boat and plow snow and haul
everything. It will ultimately pull my 10 to the airport. If my average
speed for those miles is 40 mph then that equates to about 2500 hours. I
fly my friends Archer 180 hp. The mechanics say the compression is great
and the engine is in tip top shape yet we are always adding oil. This is
normal?!? I always thought burning oil was a sign of a worn engine. I
looked at a Porsche Cayman S and the dealer told me oil changes are done
under warranty every 20,000 miles! My Father-in-Law's Mercedes owners
manual says to change oil every 12,000 miles. We are fast approaching 2010
here friends. You just can't tell me an engine can't be built for a lot
less than $40,000 + for my RV-10 that will run as good or better than my
Avalanche V8. I also don't understand why Lycoming hasn't come up with a
cutting edge engine design. Every auto maker seems to improve their engines
one way or another every year. 50 years for Lycoming and no major changes?
Where are there more internal combustion engines of similar horsepower to GA
aircraft than autos. My feeble opinion is that the best odds for an
alternative engine will be found in automotive engine technologies. Go Egg.
Dave Leikam
40496
tailcone
Muskego WI
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Let me put in something here, while I agree engines at the track often
> eat themselves, how many of these engines are stock and have not had any
> work done to them to make them race worthy? I would bet all of the
> engines you speak of have had something as mild as a CAM upgrade to a
> full blown bore and NOS treatment. In those conditions running 100%
> could cause major issues. But the Egg engine is stock, IE no change to
> the CAM, No NOS system added for that last second push.
> Like I said we can speculate all day, lets wait 5 more months or so, and
> I will be able to give all of us a report on real numbers. So far my
> build has not had very much additional work to it, in fact I would say
> in the long run I will end up saving time by not having to worry about
> baffling or many of the other FWF items that many Lycoming installs have
> to be concerned with. But only time will tell, and as the engine is
> delivered to me, I will make sure and document everything, and work with
> third parties to verify everything I post, because I know nobody on this
> list will take anybody at face value.
> Can't we all just get along and push forward with the EXPERIMENTAL
> aspect in our chosen hobby?
> Dan
> N289DT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
> Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway),
> in
> straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy
> V-8's.
> If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in
> rear
> view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
>
> engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to
> run'em
> hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
> that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it,
> check
> any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
>
> mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that
> "disassembled"
> themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only
> quicken
> the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do
> Not
> Archive
>
> BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays
> YOUR
> money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't
> like
> "reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go
> wrong.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Take a car to the
>>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
> regular
>>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>>> engine.
>>
>>
>> Hi Jesse,
>> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
>> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
>> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples
> to
>> show that there is any truth to it.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Dj
>
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
What the H#*L is KABONG?
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> "But the Egg engine is stock". "STOCK" ? ?.
> Not even re-worked to the extent as a AD'ed Lyco or Cont. or a VW ? ?
> There has got to be a engine builder out there that can still "blueprint &
> balance" a Subaru, with all the 4 banger hot rodders trying to run with
> the big dogs. See I can be nice...didn't say rice burner but once. Sorry
> it's just my old Harley days coming back. 8*) KABONG Do Not Archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:28 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|