---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 12/03/06: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:54:42 AM PST US From: "Russell Daves" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:32:47 AM PST US From: "John Jessen" 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 "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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:44 AM PST US From: Larry Rosen 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:27:12 AM PST US From: "Dave Leikam" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:06:04 AM PST US From: Rick Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:06:49 AM PST US From: "John Hasbrouck" 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:18:22 AM PST US From: James Hein 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: > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:24:18 AM PST US From: 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 -----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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:56:04 AM PST US From: "Bob Leffler" 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:39 AM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:21:19 AM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Subaru "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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:14 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru From: "John W. Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:12 PM PST US From: "Dave Leikam" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Band Saw 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" 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" > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:03:22 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:07:38 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:42 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:05:26 PM PST US From: "David M." Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:40:42 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner Now that's what I want....en engine that will actually run "forever". ;) Wouldn't that make the rebuild issue non-existant? 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:59:59 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: Dj Merrill 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:13 PM PST US From: "John Jessen" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Band Saw 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:29:47 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:13 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:41:25 PM PST US From: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:49:45 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:52:50 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:02:02 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Band Saw From: "Patrick Pulis" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:04:42 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Subaru From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:12:58 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Panel Cutting From: "McGANN, Ron" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:13:28 PM PST US From: "David McNeill" 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. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:15:47 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:57 PM PST US From: "jdalton77" 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" 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:57 PM PST US From: "jdalton77" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:58 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:28:32 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:31:36 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." 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. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:53:58 PM PST US From: "Jesse Saint" Subject: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:00:29 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:17:28 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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" 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" > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:40 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Band Saw From: "johngoodman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:33:32 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" 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." Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:05 PM PST US From: "David M." Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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" >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:11 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:05 PM PST US From: "Bill and Tami Britton" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:20:51 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner From: "John W. Cox" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:20 PM PST US From: "David McNeill" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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)" Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:50 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:15 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen 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 47 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:24 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:43 PM PST US From: "Jae Chang" Subject: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:51 PM PST US From: Les Kearney Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:28 PM PST US From: "bob.kaufmann" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fighter pilot? 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:38:41 PM PST US From: "Dave Leikam" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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." 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:47 PM PST US From: "Dave Leikam" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner What the H#*L is KABONG? Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "JOHN STARN" 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." > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:28 PM > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner > > >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.