Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:41 AM - Re: Static/XPDR check (Marcus Cooper)
2. 04:31 AM - Re: Fuselage options (preset flaps) (Jesse Saint)
3. 04:42 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Tim Olson)
4. 05:01 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
5. 05:53 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Jesse Saint)
6. 06:20 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
7. 06:32 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
8. 06:47 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Tim Olson)
9. 06:47 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Les Kearney)
10. 06:48 AM - Re: Subaru (Rhonda Bewley)
11. 07:27 AM - engine wars was Re: Eggenfellner (linn Walters)
12. 07:39 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (JOHN STARN)
13. 08:00 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
14. 08:05 AM - Re: engine wars was Re: Eggenfellner (Kelly McMullen)
15. 08:22 AM - Re: Lyc. Cranks (Kelly McMullen)
16. 08:41 AM - Re: Re: Lyc. Cranks (Rhonda Bewley)
17. 08:57 AM - Re: Eggenfellner (James K Hovis)
18. 10:32 AM - access panels (John Gonzalez)
19. 11:12 AM - Re: access panels (Rick)
20. 12:10 PM - Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance (Richard Reynolds)
21. 12:20 PM - Re: access panels (John W. Cox)
22. 12:23 PM - Re: access panels (Les Kearney)
23. 01:01 PM - Re: access panels (John Gonzalez)
24. 01:23 PM - Re: Eggenfellner/Subaru (Chris , Susie Darcy)
25. 01:38 PM - Re: access panels (Rick)
26. 01:42 PM - Re: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance (Rick)
27. 01:47 PM - Re: access panels (John W. Cox)
28. 02:04 PM - Re: access panels (John W. Cox)
29. 02:15 PM - Re: access panels (Niko)
30. 04:53 PM - Diesel options (Doug Nebert)
31. 05:05 PM - Re: Diesel options (David McNeill)
32. 06:46 PM - Re: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance (Jesse Saint)
33. 08:22 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Dj Merrill)
34. 08:58 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (linn Walters)
35. 09:19 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (John Gonzalez)
36. 09:27 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (John Gonzalez)
37. 09:32 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Kelly McMullen)
38. 09:43 PM - Intercoms (John Gonzalez)
39. 09:47 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (JOHN STARN)
40. 10:05 PM - Re: Eggenfellner (Tim Olson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Static/XPDR check |
This is a little late, but I got my Transponder and IFR static check done
and was extremely pleased with the results. In case anyone is looking for a
great place to get this accomplished, I'd highly recommend Dan Smith at D&D
Avionics in Macon, GA (478-254-6552). He's got the latest and most
sensitive equipment and experience with all kinds of systems. He had no
problem getting my Grand Rapids EFIS dialed in and knew the right questions
to ask so we could figure out the programming. He was also the cheapest of
everyone I talked to which was an extra bonus.
Marcus
40286
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Cooper
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Static/XPDR check
I am in desperate need of getting my RV-10 IFR worthy. Does anyone know of
a good place to get the XPDR and static checks completed in South Georgia or
North Florida? I have a tentative appointment with Stark avionics where I
bought by radios, but it's not until 24 Oct and a little far away. The guys
at Macon, GA are out for 2 weeks.
Thanks,
Marcus
Do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuselage options (preset flaps) |
The flaps can either be just infinitely-adjustable electric, or you can get
the flap positioning system that has 4 presets (reflexed 3, 0, 15, 30). It
is, of course, also infinitely adjustable, but has the presets for easy
handling and not needing to count while extending. I am sure some are going
without the positioning system, but I think it is a no-brainer (no offense
meant to those going without) option if you can afford it.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
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 Jae Chang
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 11:38 PM
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
--
4:36 PM
--
7:18 AM
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Les Kearney wrote:
>
> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
The other month, I and our EAA group had the opportunity to visit the
Lycoming factory and do a tour. While I certainly do not desire to be a "water"
carrier for any product, I think one has to look at a product as to why it
exists. If the auto manufacturers were required to meet all the aviation/FAA
standards then the auto engines and automobiles would cost much more than they
currently do. If all the auto mechanics had to be federally licensed then
repairs would cost much more.
Lycoming is essentially making a custom, small run product. Each engine is
being built for a specific individual with individual specification. Imagine
that Chevy making each engine per the buyers specs or that if an engine
rebuild is required that the parts are all somehow routed through GM since they
were the first builder of the engine block. Or that of the engines being
rebuilt many were being custom rebuilt by the original engine plant? Or that
GM
being investigated each time one of their products fails, the way aircraft
companies are vetted after an accident? Certainly there are after market
builders who may work differently but they may still require parts from the OEM
supplier.
Additionally, aircraft engines are not made in volume. They are custom
built, one at a time by a highly experienced builders. Additionally from what
I
could see Lycoming is a union represented. Don't know if that adds to the
cost but I'd expect it does have some effect on the cost...but I don't know if
having a union shop adds to the quality or detracts. Today it can go either
way.
I currently fly more than recreationally, about 300 hours per year and
certainly respect the folks that build the power plants and maintain them, as
I'm
betting my life to their skills and so are you if you fly one hour per year
or 1,000 hours.
My buddy Pete bet his future with Delta Hawk's new tech and now is
installing a Lycoming in his project. I do hope that there will be many power
options
for all aircraft especially when I get ready to order and that new options
come on the market...as I don't have a dog in this fight.
My current spam product have a Lycoming in the PA 28-235 and the J-5s have
Continentals and I sure liked the sales pitch of a number of engine suppliers
but so few have performed over time. In case all have forgotten Porsche is
get involved in a single lever product with Mooney back in the late 1970's
early 1980...that engine failed but from what I remember Porsche did support the
engine for a long time after they withdrew.
There are a number of options out there besides the majors but all come with
a higher pucker factor and the Eggenfeller is certainly in this category
from my knowledge. They have very few engines flying and are promising a lot
to
the market place. They have not met the test of time from what I know but
they may at some time in the future. So if wants to be an experimenter in
craft, build, and engine go that route. If not one can then go through a mix of
technologies to meet your "pucker" factor. No choice is perfect so go the
direction you are most comfortable with.
I'd like to look at this decision making like my buddy and CFI/I looks at
students. He final review of a student mentally goes like this...he'll release
a student for flight if he thinks he can trust his wife and kids in the
other empty seats with his student at the controls. That's the way I'd like to
think about the engines in my aircraft...do I trust them to build a product
that will keep my family safe.
Please don't kid yourselves, an engine failure at a critical time may kill
you; I don't care how much flying time and experience you have. At some
critical times your flying skills only mitigate the accident scene does not
eliminate it.
Patrick
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And on it goes.
A lot of cars say in the manual to change the oil every 6000-9000 miles (or
even more), but common practice is still 3,000 for longest car life. Do it
that often, at least with the oil that most people use, and your car will
not last that long. That is something that I will never fully understand.
If you put that kind of money in a Porsche, are you really going to let it
go 20,000 without a change? My uncle was just down and he says his farm
equipment required oil changes every 500 hours or so, but he does then every
250. Different engines and different uses have different needs. Also, I
bet guys racing Porsches change the oil a lot more often than 20,000 miles.
On the need to add oil on the aircraft engine, my understanding is there is
a different dynamic of how the oil is used/needed. I am going on hearsay,
but air cooled engines blow off a lot more oil than water cooled or
something like that. They also burn more. Maybe it has to do with the
horizontal cylinders or something like that. In N256H it will blow off down
to 9-10 Qts very quickly, then will hold 8-9 for a lot of hours. N415EC
will hold 9 Qts for over 30 hours without burning more than a quart.
Comparing the quality of the engine to the frequency of oil change required
or the amount of oil added is not really fair IMHO.
I am sure there are a TON of factors included in the cost of an aircraft
engine versus that of a car engine. Economies of scale is certainly part of
it (custom versus volume, as you put it). I don't think that is a huge
part, though. I know a huge portion (it would be interesting to know how
much) is insurance. The insurance on a car engine pretty much just needs to
cover the cost of replacing itself if something goes wrong. I haven't heard
of many (I am sure there are some cases) people dying in a car accident
because their engine quit. They are usually just stranded beside the road.
There is probably more liability on tires than on the engine on a car. On
an airplane, however, you can read reports all day of accidents including
deaths when an airplane engine failed, or hickup'ed, or lacked power.
Insurance there has to cover the lives of those being pulled(pushed) by that
engine. I am sure they would argue that the cost of certification is
included as well, but that was done so long ago that I am sure it has been
paid for many times over. I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons
they charge so much is simply because they can (enter the Subie to help this
problem?).
Lycoming hasn't come up with new technology (at least not ground-breaking)
in a long time for a couple of reasons that I see (and I am sure there are
others). First, they went through the certification process which mad to be
extremely expensive. Why does the Cirrus cost 2-4 times what the RV-10 does
for similar performance? Also, the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't
fix it!" comes to mind. It worked then and continues to work now. Yes, it
is expensive, but it is still performs well and can be quite economical if
flown right. They're going to ride that horse as long as they can, which
would be the case of Egg or anybody else that comes up with something that
really works right.
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 Dave Leikam
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:38 AM
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." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Let me put in something here, while I agree engines at the track often
> eat themselves, how many of these engines are stock and have not had any
> work done to them to make them race worthy? I would bet all of the
> engines you speak of have had something as mild as a CAM upgrade to a
> full blown bore and NOS treatment. In those conditions running 100%
> could cause major issues. But the Egg engine is stock, IE no change to
> the CAM, No NOS system added for that last second push.
> Like I said we can speculate all day, lets wait 5 more months or so, and
> I will be able to give all of us a report on real numbers. So far my
> build has not had very much additional work to it, in fact I would say
> in the long run I will end up saving time by not having to worry about
> baffling or many of the other FWF items that many Lycoming installs have
> to be concerned with. But only time will tell, and as the engine is
> delivered to me, I will make sure and document everything, and work with
> third parties to verify everything I post, because I know nobody on this
> list will take anybody at face value.
> Can't we all just get along and push forward with the EXPERIMENTAL
> aspect in our chosen hobby?
> Dan
> N289DT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 7:51 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
> Having raced Corvettes on the tracks of So. Cal (Ole Riverside Raceway),
> in
> straight line drags with flathead Fords, in-line Chev. six's & Chevy
> V-8's.
> If your running at only 75% power you are one of those being viewed in
> rear
> view mirrors. Why do the Big Boys of motorsports keep at least two spare
>
> engines at the track ?. Run'em and they will break. Ya don't have to
> run'em
> hard for five hours, 1/4 mile at a time will quickly do the trick. BUT
> that's at 100% for less than 15 seconds. Don't take my word for it,
> check
> any motorsports stats. airplane, motorcycle, cars, NASCAR, off road, 1/4
>
> mile and see how many DNF's are related to powerplants that
> "disassembled"
> themselves. Turbos, nitro, NO, higher compression, high RPM's only
> quicken
> the coming of the end and that terrible silence that follows. KABONG Do
> Not
> Archive
>
> BUT we are building "experimental" airplanes. Ya make YOUR choice, pays
> YOUR
> money & takes YOUR chances. ME ? ?, Leaning toward RV-12 but I don't
> like
> "reduction" gearboxes as a general rule. Just one more thing to go
> wrong.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dj Merrill" <deej@deej.net>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Take a car to the
>>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
> regular
>>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on that
>>> engine.
>>
>>
>> Hi Jesse,
>> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that up?
>> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
>> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples
> to
>> show that there is any truth to it.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Dj
>
>
>
--
4:36 PM
--
7:18 AM
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Nicely written, and this was the point I was trying to make all along.
We just do not know. We can conjecture till the cows come home, but
performance numbers in the 10 are an unknown until we bolt the first one
up and fly it. I am hoping that I will get close to, or equal
performance, but it has never been about max speed for me, rather as I
have told everyone it is about non-stop between Orlando and PIT. I have
talked with Jesse and his dad makes it readily with the Lycoming, while
still having the required reserve, so if I can match that then I will be
happy.
As for longevity, I agree with you Tim, the unknown is the PSRU. I think
the engine is rock solid and will far outlast the various bolt on's. I
talked with Jan for awhile on this, and he explained how the engine
pulses, and the prop pulses are being damped, it made sense to me, but
as of now there is only one flying example of the new gear box.
As for TBO, it is arbitrarily set at 2000 hours, because this is the
same as Lycoming. When the engines reach that number then they will be
examined and the number adjusted. The longest running one to my
knowledge is Charlie Walkers plane up in the NorthWest. He flys around
the islands out there, and has no question on the reliability. He always
gets his oil analyzed and posts the results. I think he is close to 1000
hours now, with no appreciable metal detected.
The reason I brought up crankshaft, was this was not the first recall,
rather at least the third I have been part of. There are many people
upset at the local FBO, as this effects their engines, and in the long
run might stop several of them from flying because of funds, sad but a
very real reality for many. The last batch of recalls effects 5k plus
engines.
The Subaru is continually being upgraded to make things better. In my
opinion, an engine that has been around for more than 50 years
(Lycoming) should be rock solid, able to make it to TBO without top
overhauls etc, but they routinely do not. That is not to say there are
none out there doing it, just that it is not the norm.
So, instead of jumping on us 400 or so individuals that are willing to
take a risk to make it better for others, how about a little
encouragement for those of us willing to step out of the box to make it
better for all?
Here is to those willing to buck the norm "HOORAY", because if we were
not here, those two bicycle repairmen would never have gotten airborne!
Caveat "This was not directed towards anyone, rather just a thought in
general, because so many are nay sayers rather than encouragers"
Dan
N289DT
Painting the wings
-----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 9:00 PM
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" <deej@deej.net>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
>>
>> Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> Take a car to the
>>> racetrack and run it at even 75% power for 5 hours at a time on a
regular
>>> basis and you will be doing a lot of repairs and replacements on
that
>>> engine.
>>
>> Hi Jesse,
>> That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any data to back that
up?
>> No, this is not intended as a flame, but I hear similar statements
>> thrown around a bunch but no one comes back with any actual examples
to
>> show that there is any truth to it.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>> -Dj
>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Being from the Rice Burner side of the house I do not take offense to
that term. Two of us spec'd an original CBR900RR fireblade, we
eventually got it to over 140hp on the dyno, with a wet weight under
390lbs. I got clocked at 167mph, and still had throttle and pull left to
go. So, no problems being known as a rice burner. "GRIN"
Dan
Do not archive
-----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 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
"But the Egg engine is stock". "STOCK" ? ?.
Not even re-worked to the extent as a AD'ed Lyco or Cont. or a VW ? ?
There has got to be a engine builder out there that can still "blueprint
&
balance" a Subaru, with all the 4 banger hot rodders trying to run with
the
big dogs. See I can be nice...didn't say rice burner but once. Sorry
it's
just my old Harley days coming back. 8*) KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
<LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
I'm very sorry in advance, but driving to work brought more time to
think on this. I feel bad in that I REALLY don't want to have people
think I'm down on them or their engine choice if they go Subie, but
I really think people need to honesty evaluate their objectives
when they make that decision.
Basically, any choice like this is one where there's a pie-chart
of reasons. There can be MANY pieces of pie. So you go Lyc,
it may look like this: (this is JUST an example, and I'm JUST
trying to add to a constructive conversation)
Long term proven Track Record in Aircraft Installations: 45%
Big Bore Throaty sound (asthetics): 5%
Air cooling...no worries about water leaks at altitude: 10%
Commonality...easy to find a mechanic on field: 10%
Performance...known good performance: 20%
Available from reputable engine builder: 10%
So now you look at the same thing for a Subie...
Durable engine in auto applications: 30%
Smooth running, smooth sounding (asthetics): 20%
Possible somewhat lower cost: 15%
Liquid cooling...allows tighter tolerances: 5%
Low cost rebuilds: 15%
Easily available parts: 5%
Turbonormalized for high altitude performance: 10%
***
So you see from above that each engine will have some reasons for
choosing it. It is just a plain fact that "Long term proven
track record in aircraft installations" cannot be part of the
Subie pie....just as it's not possible that "Liquid cooling...
allows tighter tolerances" cannot be part of the lycoming pie.
These aren't digs, and they're not always negatives or positives,
but they do illustrate that it REALLY takes a different set of
engine goals to come to this choice.
Additionally, Dan said something to the sort of: "When I'm
done and flying, I want to give tons of demo rides....<snip>
and once you fly behind one you will be sold."
Ok, Fair enough, again, Dan knows I'm not digging on him
personally....Dan and I are buds. But, sit and seriously
ponder what it could possibly be that would turn your
opinion after a 1 hour demo flight. Can something like
"Long term reliability and proven..." even be a part of that
equation? I suggest that a decision that quick, will
ultimately be made on a pie-chart of values as above, but
you REALLY should make a list of what the pieces of pie
are, and see how you weigh the values.
To drag on longer, I was an earlier builder who looked at
Crossflow, DeltaHawk, and others. Before I even BOUGHT the
kit, one of my goals was to do a homebuilt so I could get
the 3000 hour stated TBO of a diesel, along with it's fuel
flow benefits. Well, I'm certainly glad I didn't wait
for the engine to be delivered, as I've got 177 hours
FLYING on mine. But, additionally, there is absolutely no
reliable track record that can be given to the engines that
I was going to choose. So I looked long and hard at my
situation. What did I REALLY care about most. What I
REALLY cared about, flying my 2 kids around the sky,
was that I would never, ever, have an off airport landing
due to engine failure, knowing I wanted an IFR bird. That is
the single largest piece of my pie. When I made that decision,
the cost differences and others became null and void,
and my pie changed completely.
Do I have a dog in this fight? No, not at all. I really
want to see some of these engines go and put on lots of hours.
I wouldn't call it a success until that particular engine model
has 10,000+ total hours on it, at least....and probably more.
But, the one interest we all have is this....insurance. Right
now, there's no reason to ding them. What if we rebalanced
the flying RV-10's differently. Right now we have what, 59
-10's all running almost identical engines, with no engine
failures attributed to the engine. What if all 59 or more
were flying subies, would they be as successful? We just
don't know. What if 10 subies land in our fleet, and it's
75 to 10, but we have 1 subie failure? Does that mean anything?
Probably not. But I sure hope that after all 17 are delivered
and flying that there is nothing that happens to any of them
that will raise rates for anyone else. We're counting on
EVERYONE to build and maintain to high standards, lycs
and subies alike. Beyond that, a good engine does not a
good engine installation make. With a PRSU, and other
variables, you truly are experimenting, and we're all wishing
for the experiment to be a success. The Subie block and
crank and pistons may prove to be the reliable part of the
equation.
Interestingly, the reliability choice of mine bled into
other areas as well. It's the biggest reason why I was
plenty happy with 8.5:1 pistons, and a fairly standard
system. John talks about engines he's known that blew up.
Funny thing is, lots of them have been souped up a bit,
or have a "T" in front of the identifier. Personally,
I would not trade the performance or anything else for the
possible reliability penalty that a turbo, or hi-comp
pistons would bring. The engine manufacturers may feel
fairly good about 9:1 pistons, but in absolute fact,
as you increase the compression, there are penalties paid.
They just become quicker and larger penalties as you go
higher. So 9:1 may be just not much worse than 8.5:1, and
so on.
It's been a great discussion, and I just enlarged it to hopefully
open the minds a bit. Nobody is trashing subie buyers. We're
just cautious skeptics ourselves, and I personally just haven't
grown the balls required.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
> track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
> out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
> the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
> for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
> literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
> enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
> LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
> conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
> one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
> that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>
> But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
> secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
> kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Les Kearney wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> 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 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tim
The operative word in your first sentence is "inquiry". I have not made a
decision and have a lot of digging to do before I do. By default my engine
will be a Lycoming. It will take a lot more info to get me to switch to an
alternative although this is position is taken reluctantly.
I willing admit there is a ton of stuff about engines that I do not know.
The conflicting posts about running Egg engines and the ability to stand
high power settings suggests that there is a lot that other people don't
know as well. What I want to do is get to the point where I know that I am
making the right decision. I am not prepared to genuflect at anyone's altar
based on faith be it Eggs, Lycoming's or the Acme Whiz Bang Aircraft Engine
Company's.
That being said, I know of two people who have had catastrophic engine
failures flying behind O-360's which are reputably the best that Lycoming
has built. I have had a mag failure and am forever chasing minor oil leaks.
Given Kelley's crankshaft comment, how do I know that the new Lyc 540 that I
buy won't be the victim of some new form of cost cutting by Lycoming
management? I really don't want to install at 25 year old engine either.
So there you have it. I am on the horns of a dilemma and am trying to become
educated on my engine options.
IMHO, the safest technology is not necessarily the oldest or most prevalent.
It would be intersecting to research how many Egg engines have had problems
and compare this with a similar number of Lycoming engines.
Does anyone know how to get this info from the NTSB / FAA websites?
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Les Kearney wrote:
>
> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"anybody know the cost of the Superior XP-400 and XP-400SRE?"
Jesse:
Superior was at our shop a couple of weeks ago and discussed the
availability of the XP-400 engine. To date, they have built three of
them. Two for testing purposes, one for Scotty Germain's plane that
raced at Reno. Availability of the engine is contingent upon the
availability of their redesigned Ryton sump, and the engines will not be
available from engine build shops for some time (read - you will only be
able to get it from the factory.) No pricing as of yet, as I would
suspect they don't have any cost data so are unable to put a price
together for the engine.
They stated no plans to enter the six-cylinder market at the current
time.
Rhonda
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 4:33 PM
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 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Dave Leikam wrote:
snip
> 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?!?
usually
> I always thought burning oil was a sign of a worn engine.
It is ..... at least worn cylinders/rings.
snip
> I also don't understand why Lycoming hasn't come up with a cutting
> edge engine design.
Because it's cost prohibitive to re-certify the engine and the
engine/plane combination. thank the FAA for that one!
> 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.
Well, I have to agree that auto engines are definitely more state of the
art, but comparing the life of your car engine to your Lycosaur isn't
really fair. You don't treat them any where near the same, as was
alluded to in some posts. Your car doesn't sit idle for weeks (or
months) at a time and then get run a little bit. Most airplanes in
private ownership (non-flight school or other business related
operation) get treated that way. The accelerated cylinder wear that
causes high oil consumption is due to the rust that forms in the
cylinders when the plane sits for an extended period of time. If the
plane is flown regularly and about 100 to 150 hours a year, the lycosaur
will go to TBO without even getting a top!!! The secret is regular use
and care.
Linn
>
>
> Dave Leikam
> 40496
> tailcone
> Muskego WI
> do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
SHHHH...don't tell anyone...I've owned three Honda motorcycles my self.
CX500, 1100 Goldwing Interstate & VT1100 Shadow. (plus BMW's, a Husky,
Harley's & a Zundap) 8*)
KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
> Being from the Rice Burner side of the house I do not take offense to
> that term. Two of us spec'd an original CBR900RR fireblade, we
> eventually got it to over 140hp on the dyno, with a wet weight under
> 390lbs. I got clocked at 167mph, and still had throttle and pull left to
> go. So, no problems being known as a rice burner. "GRIN"
> Dan
> Do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Very well said, You bring up all of the points I used to make the
decision. What most people do not get to see is the agony of the
decision. I did not just wake up one morning and decide, rather it was a
long process that spanned two kits, a 7 and a 10. I have followed Jan
and his design for 5+ years. What I learned along the way was that the
engine would be built the best way he knew, that the support both before
and after the sale was what I was expecting. I also learned that
timelines were not important to Jan, delivery dates would slip, because
he was trying to make a better product not because he was unreliable. I
am sorry that Michael had a bad experience, because I asked many of the
same questions and have gotten the answers I was comfortable with. I
have had 2-3 trips per year down to the factory and have seen many
engines getting ready for delivery. Yes, they are shipped without some
components, but it is so that the builder can get on with the process of
installing them. Care packages are sent out, based on need and who is
flying first. One has to remember it is a small shop and being run to
the best of his ability. One thing I can say for sure, is that I will
get a quality engine, built to the best of Jan's ability, at an
affordable price, and my expectations from the vendor are being met and
exceeded every time I talk with him. He is always busy, but always takes
time when I call, or email questions.
You bring up the number one issue with the install of this package, and
that is the BUILDER. All of us think we know better and try to
re-engineer what has been known to work. With the Eggenfellner package,
allot of thought has gone into the install, and if you follow the
recommendations your chance for success are allot higher than if you
just do what you think will work. An example is the fuel pumps of
previous days. The pumps were mounted in the engine compartment, and a
blast tube for cooling was needed. Several builders decided they did not
need a blast tube, and one had a vapor lock issue that caused the pumps
to cavitate, and a loss of power was the result because the pumps could
not reprime. This was solved by a bleed bypass and the pumps moved into
the cabin. So yes feedback occurs and changes are made. It is
unfortunate that it takes this form, a plane loss for a change to occur.
But a deficiency was noted and the change made. That is how it was for
all of the older planes, and how they developed that OLD Lycoming,
things were tried, some worked, but many more did not. But each change
made the system more reliable and better for the loss that occurred.
Tim brings up a very valid point about a rock solid power plant and
wanting to fly IFR with the family. This has weighed heavy on me, and
was not a light decision. But like all of the other decisions I had to
accept personal responsibility for when building this plane, I choose
what I felt comfortable with. Does this mean I will take the family up
at 41 hours and make a long xctry in it. No, I will continue flight
testing, growing each leg farther and farther, building hours and
confidence in the engine and plane.
I would pose this question to each builder, we are building IFR
platforms, and putting in experimental instrumentation, is this any less
risky than an experimental power plant? I for one do not think so. With
the recent problems with Dynon, Chelton and others, it is all unknown,
and failure modes are unknown. But what can be done to alleviate that
unknown? Testing, and confidence building in the platform of choice.
BUILD IT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, TEST IT, AND HAVE FUN.
Dan
N289DT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
I'm very sorry in advance, but driving to work brought more time to
think on this. I feel bad in that I REALLY don't want to have people
think I'm down on them or their engine choice if they go Subie, but
I really think people need to honesty evaluate their objectives
when they make that decision.
Basically, any choice like this is one where there's a pie-chart
of reasons. There can be MANY pieces of pie. So you go Lyc,
it may look like this: (this is JUST an example, and I'm JUST
trying to add to a constructive conversation)
Long term proven Track Record in Aircraft Installations: 45%
Big Bore Throaty sound (asthetics): 5%
Air cooling...no worries about water leaks at altitude: 10%
Commonality...easy to find a mechanic on field: 10%
Performance...known good performance: 20%
Available from reputable engine builder: 10%
So now you look at the same thing for a Subie...
Durable engine in auto applications: 30%
Smooth running, smooth sounding (asthetics): 20%
Possible somewhat lower cost: 15%
Liquid cooling...allows tighter tolerances: 5%
Low cost rebuilds: 15%
Easily available parts: 5%
Turbonormalized for high altitude performance: 10%
***
So you see from above that each engine will have some reasons for
choosing it. It is just a plain fact that "Long term proven
track record in aircraft installations" cannot be part of the
Subie pie....just as it's not possible that "Liquid cooling...
allows tighter tolerances" cannot be part of the lycoming pie.
These aren't digs, and they're not always negatives or positives,
but they do illustrate that it REALLY takes a different set of
engine goals to come to this choice.
Additionally, Dan said something to the sort of: "When I'm
done and flying, I want to give tons of demo rides....<snip>
and once you fly behind one you will be sold."
Ok, Fair enough, again, Dan knows I'm not digging on him
personally....Dan and I are buds. But, sit and seriously
ponder what it could possibly be that would turn your
opinion after a 1 hour demo flight. Can something like
"Long term reliability and proven..." even be a part of that
equation? I suggest that a decision that quick, will
ultimately be made on a pie-chart of values as above, but
you REALLY should make a list of what the pieces of pie
are, and see how you weigh the values.
To drag on longer, I was an earlier builder who looked at
Crossflow, DeltaHawk, and others. Before I even BOUGHT the
kit, one of my goals was to do a homebuilt so I could get
the 3000 hour stated TBO of a diesel, along with it's fuel
flow benefits. Well, I'm certainly glad I didn't wait
for the engine to be delivered, as I've got 177 hours
FLYING on mine. But, additionally, there is absolutely no
reliable track record that can be given to the engines that
I was going to choose. So I looked long and hard at my
situation. What did I REALLY care about most. What I
REALLY cared about, flying my 2 kids around the sky,
was that I would never, ever, have an off airport landing
due to engine failure, knowing I wanted an IFR bird. That is
the single largest piece of my pie. When I made that decision,
the cost differences and others became null and void,
and my pie changed completely.
Do I have a dog in this fight? No, not at all. I really
want to see some of these engines go and put on lots of hours.
I wouldn't call it a success until that particular engine model
has 10,000+ total hours on it, at least....and probably more.
But, the one interest we all have is this....insurance. Right
now, there's no reason to ding them. What if we rebalanced
the flying RV-10's differently. Right now we have what, 59
-10's all running almost identical engines, with no engine
failures attributed to the engine. What if all 59 or more
were flying subies, would they be as successful? We just
don't know. What if 10 subies land in our fleet, and it's
75 to 10, but we have 1 subie failure? Does that mean anything?
Probably not. But I sure hope that after all 17 are delivered
and flying that there is nothing that happens to any of them
that will raise rates for anyone else. We're counting on
EVERYONE to build and maintain to high standards, lycs
and subies alike. Beyond that, a good engine does not a
good engine installation make. With a PRSU, and other
variables, you truly are experimenting, and we're all wishing
for the experiment to be a success. The Subie block and
crank and pistons may prove to be the reliable part of the
equation.
Interestingly, the reliability choice of mine bled into
other areas as well. It's the biggest reason why I was
plenty happy with 8.5:1 pistons, and a fairly standard
system. John talks about engines he's known that blew up.
Funny thing is, lots of them have been souped up a bit,
or have a "T" in front of the identifier. Personally,
I would not trade the performance or anything else for the
possible reliability penalty that a turbo, or hi-comp
pistons would bring. The engine manufacturers may feel
fairly good about 9:1 pistons, but in absolute fact,
as you increase the compression, there are penalties paid.
They just become quicker and larger penalties as you go
higher. So 9:1 may be just not much worse than 8.5:1, and
so on.
It's been a great discussion, and I just enlarged it to hopefully
open the minds a bit. Nobody is trashing subie buyers. We're
just cautious skeptics ourselves, and I personally just haven't
grown the balls required.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
> track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
> out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
> the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
> for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
> literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
> enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
> LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
> conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
> one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
> that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>
> But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
> secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
> kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Les Kearney wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> 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 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
A lot of folks don't realize that a lot of incremental improvements
have, in fact, been made on the Lycomings. While the basic cylinder
design does date back 50 years, at that time TBO was around 1200
hours. Cylinder flange was changed from narrow flange to wide flange.
The valve stem size was increased from 7/16s to 1/2 to reduce valve
stem breakage, rings and honing have improved, valve guides were
improved as recently as 1995 to reduce the need for a valve wobble
check from 400 hours to 1000 hours, and within the last 5 years they
have gone to roller lifter/cam configuration. In the bottom end,
dowels were added to the bearings and various bearing configurations
changed. Oil pumps changed for worse, then for better. Until the
bearing configuration was updated TBO's were stuck in the 1600 hr
range.
If you choose carefully, you can get a fast break-in(less than 5
hours), very low oil consumption engine with CermiNil cylinders, a
roller cam/lifter, improved valves and porting, improved sump and
intake manifolding to give you a better engine, built by your favorite
engine builder, with virtually no Lycoming branded parts, that will
still be recognized by your DAR as a certified engine for fly-off
purposes. That engine will give you more power and better economy,
with vast parts availability, compared to any alternate engine
configuration, and be very likely to give you more than 2000 hours of
reliable service.
JMHO, KM
A&P/IA
Do Not archive
On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > I also don't understand why Lycoming hasn't come up with a cutting
> > edge engine design.
>
> Because it's cost prohibitive to re-certify the engine and the
> engine/plane combination. thank the FAA for that one!
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, I have to agree that auto engines are definitely more state of the
> art, but comparing the life of your car engine to your Lycosaur isn't
> really fair. You don't treat them any where near the same, as was
> alluded to in some posts. Your car doesn't sit idle for weeks (or
> months) at a time and then get run a little bit. Most airplanes in
> private ownership (non-flight school or other business related
> operation) get treated that way. The accelerated cylinder wear that
> causes high oil consumption is due to the rust that forms in the
> cylinders when the plane sits for an extended period of time. If the
> plane is flown regularly and about 100 to 150 hours a year, the lycosaur
> will go to TBO without even getting a top!!! The secret is regular use
> and care.
> Linn
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Les, you might want to look into whether Superior or ECI offer or will
be offering a crank for the -540. I know they do for the -360 engines,
for about 20% less than the Lycoming part, with none of the AD issues
the recent Lyc cranks have. Perhaps Rhonda or Allen know the answer, I
just haven't researched it.
On 12/4/06, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Given Kelly's crankshaft comment, how do I know that the new Lyc 540 that I
> buy won't be the victim of some new form of cost cutting by Lycoming
> management? I really don't want to install at 25 year old engine either.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I can't say about ECI. I've heard for several years that they were
planning on a 540 clone but certainly haven't seen anything to lend any
credibility to it. Based on what Superior told us a few weeks ago, I
would say not in the foreseeable future.
Rhonda
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Lyc. Cranks
Les, you might want to look into whether Superior or ECI offer or will
be offering a crank for the -540. I know they do for the -360 engines,
for about 20% less than the Lycoming part, with none of the AD issues
the recent Lyc cranks have. Perhaps Rhonda or Allen know the answer, I
just haven't researched it.
On 12/4/06, Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Given Kelly's crankshaft comment, how do I know that the new Lyc 540
that I
> buy won't be the victim of some new form of cost cutting by Lycoming
> management? I really don't want to install at 25 year old engine
either.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Here's some thoughts from a hopefully near future builder (and
professional aircraft engineer too):
I want a powerplant that has these basic traits:
1) Can deliver power to a prop within the recommended range set by Van's
2) Delivers that power without a major weight penalty in my overall
payload (keep useful load and gross weight within the Van's limits)
3) Easily operated.
4) Good fuel consumption
5) Relatively simple installation
6) Can use available fuels.
7) Reliable long-term operation.
Those are the basics. Does a Lycosaur/Contidino apply? You bet. Does
the Subie apply? I'd need to study it more but so far it looks like it
would fit the bill too, but it's not out of the range of possible
powerplants at this time. Are there others? Yes.
However, everything in aircraft design is a trade-off. To do
something, you'll have to "pay" for it some way. Let's say I find a
good used 210 HP Continental for a very low price to use in my future
'-10, I'm trading some of that top-end performance those of you with
260HP Lycs are seeing. The difference would be noticable to most of
you with the "big" engines, but to the 172 driver, it's an
improvement.
Now let's look at the Subie installation. Needs a PSRU - I think that
can degrade reliability somewhat. Needs water and a radiator - adds
weight and complexity to the installation. Can run on Mogas - BIG PLUS
to me, don't know how long 100LL will be available - Vapor lock issues
can be dealt with in smart fuel system design to mimize heat exposure,
better in a water cooled engine. Initial aquisistion and rebuild cost
- BIG plus. I can replace the Subie block every 500 hrs for the cost
of a Lyc overhaul at 2000 hrs and still save money. Easy operation -
don;t know about that one. Heat management seems to add to the
complexity of operation. Overall reliability - I want to see a few run
long-term before I'd commit.
Really, trying to compare a car engine to an airplane is like apples
to oranges. THey just aren't designed for the same type of operations.
I had a discussion with my A&P a long time ago about this, if you want
an "alternate" engine that compares most closely to aircraft
applications, look to tractor/heavy equipment engines. These engines
are designed to operate at high power settings on a continuous basis
for long periods of time. The main difference between them and
aircraft engines is weight is NOT a critical aspect of their design.
Same goes for car engines. Now do I think a Cat engine can be adapted
for aircraft? No, but how that engine is put together is a lot like
airplane engines.
Food for thought
JKH
On 12/4/06, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR@wernerco.com> wrote:
>
> Very well said, You bring up all of the points I used to make the
> decision. What most people do not get to see is the agony of the
> decision. I did not just wake up one morning and decide, rather it was a
> long process that spanned two kits, a 7 and a 10. I have followed Jan
> and his design for 5+ years. What I learned along the way was that the
> engine would be built the best way he knew, that the support both before
> and after the sale was what I was expecting. I also learned that
> timelines were not important to Jan, delivery dates would slip, because
> he was trying to make a better product not because he was unreliable. I
> am sorry that Michael had a bad experience, because I asked many of the
> same questions and have gotten the answers I was comfortable with. I
> have had 2-3 trips per year down to the factory and have seen many
> engines getting ready for delivery. Yes, they are shipped without some
> components, but it is so that the builder can get on with the process of
> installing them. Care packages are sent out, based on need and who is
> flying first. One has to remember it is a small shop and being run to
> the best of his ability. One thing I can say for sure, is that I will
> get a quality engine, built to the best of Jan's ability, at an
> affordable price, and my expectations from the vendor are being met and
> exceeded every time I talk with him. He is always busy, but always takes
> time when I call, or email questions.
> You bring up the number one issue with the install of this package, and
> that is the BUILDER. All of us think we know better and try to
> re-engineer what has been known to work. With the Eggenfellner package,
> allot of thought has gone into the install, and if you follow the
> recommendations your chance for success are allot higher than if you
> just do what you think will work. An example is the fuel pumps of
> previous days. The pumps were mounted in the engine compartment, and a
> blast tube for cooling was needed. Several builders decided they did not
> need a blast tube, and one had a vapor lock issue that caused the pumps
> to cavitate, and a loss of power was the result because the pumps could
> not reprime. This was solved by a bleed bypass and the pumps moved into
> the cabin. So yes feedback occurs and changes are made. It is
> unfortunate that it takes this form, a plane loss for a change to occur.
> But a deficiency was noted and the change made. That is how it was for
> all of the older planes, and how they developed that OLD Lycoming,
> things were tried, some worked, but many more did not. But each change
> made the system more reliable and better for the loss that occurred.
>
> Tim brings up a very valid point about a rock solid power plant and
> wanting to fly IFR with the family. This has weighed heavy on me, and
> was not a light decision. But like all of the other decisions I had to
> accept personal responsibility for when building this plane, I choose
> what I felt comfortable with. Does this mean I will take the family up
> at 41 hours and make a long xctry in it. No, I will continue flight
> testing, growing each leg farther and farther, building hours and
> confidence in the engine and plane.
> I would pose this question to each builder, we are building IFR
> platforms, and putting in experimental instrumentation, is this any less
> risky than an experimental power plant? I for one do not think so. With
> the recent problems with Dynon, Chelton and others, it is all unknown,
> and failure modes are unknown. But what can be done to alleviate that
> unknown? Testing, and confidence building in the platform of choice.
> BUILD IT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, TEST IT, AND HAVE FUN.
> Dan
> N289DT
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:47 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>
>
> I'm very sorry in advance, but driving to work brought more time to
> think on this. I feel bad in that I REALLY don't want to have people
> think I'm down on them or their engine choice if they go Subie, but
> I really think people need to honesty evaluate their objectives
> when they make that decision.
>
> Basically, any choice like this is one where there's a pie-chart
> of reasons. There can be MANY pieces of pie. So you go Lyc,
> it may look like this: (this is JUST an example, and I'm JUST
> trying to add to a constructive conversation)
>
> Long term proven Track Record in Aircraft Installations: 45%
> Big Bore Throaty sound (asthetics): 5%
> Air cooling...no worries about water leaks at altitude: 10%
> Commonality...easy to find a mechanic on field: 10%
> Performance...known good performance: 20%
> Available from reputable engine builder: 10%
>
> So now you look at the same thing for a Subie...
>
> Durable engine in auto applications: 30%
> Smooth running, smooth sounding (asthetics): 20%
> Possible somewhat lower cost: 15%
> Liquid cooling...allows tighter tolerances: 5%
> Low cost rebuilds: 15%
> Easily available parts: 5%
> Turbonormalized for high altitude performance: 10%
>
> ***
>
> So you see from above that each engine will have some reasons for
> choosing it. It is just a plain fact that "Long term proven
> track record in aircraft installations" cannot be part of the
> Subie pie....just as it's not possible that "Liquid cooling...
> allows tighter tolerances" cannot be part of the lycoming pie.
> These aren't digs, and they're not always negatives or positives,
> but they do illustrate that it REALLY takes a different set of
> engine goals to come to this choice.
>
> Additionally, Dan said something to the sort of: "When I'm
> done and flying, I want to give tons of demo rides....<snip>
> and once you fly behind one you will be sold."
>
> Ok, Fair enough, again, Dan knows I'm not digging on him
> personally....Dan and I are buds. But, sit and seriously
> ponder what it could possibly be that would turn your
> opinion after a 1 hour demo flight. Can something like
> "Long term reliability and proven..." even be a part of that
> equation? I suggest that a decision that quick, will
> ultimately be made on a pie-chart of values as above, but
> you REALLY should make a list of what the pieces of pie
> are, and see how you weigh the values.
>
> To drag on longer, I was an earlier builder who looked at
> Crossflow, DeltaHawk, and others. Before I even BOUGHT the
> kit, one of my goals was to do a homebuilt so I could get
> the 3000 hour stated TBO of a diesel, along with it's fuel
> flow benefits. Well, I'm certainly glad I didn't wait
> for the engine to be delivered, as I've got 177 hours
> FLYING on mine. But, additionally, there is absolutely no
> reliable track record that can be given to the engines that
> I was going to choose. So I looked long and hard at my
> situation. What did I REALLY care about most. What I
> REALLY cared about, flying my 2 kids around the sky,
> was that I would never, ever, have an off airport landing
> due to engine failure, knowing I wanted an IFR bird. That is
> the single largest piece of my pie. When I made that decision,
> the cost differences and others became null and void,
> and my pie changed completely.
>
> Do I have a dog in this fight? No, not at all. I really
> want to see some of these engines go and put on lots of hours.
> I wouldn't call it a success until that particular engine model
> has 10,000+ total hours on it, at least....and probably more.
> But, the one interest we all have is this....insurance. Right
> now, there's no reason to ding them. What if we rebalanced
> the flying RV-10's differently. Right now we have what, 59
> -10's all running almost identical engines, with no engine
> failures attributed to the engine. What if all 59 or more
> were flying subies, would they be as successful? We just
> don't know. What if 10 subies land in our fleet, and it's
> 75 to 10, but we have 1 subie failure? Does that mean anything?
> Probably not. But I sure hope that after all 17 are delivered
> and flying that there is nothing that happens to any of them
> that will raise rates for anyone else. We're counting on
> EVERYONE to build and maintain to high standards, lycs
> and subies alike. Beyond that, a good engine does not a
> good engine installation make. With a PRSU, and other
> variables, you truly are experimenting, and we're all wishing
> for the experiment to be a success. The Subie block and
> crank and pistons may prove to be the reliable part of the
> equation.
>
> Interestingly, the reliability choice of mine bled into
> other areas as well. It's the biggest reason why I was
> plenty happy with 8.5:1 pistons, and a fairly standard
> system. John talks about engines he's known that blew up.
> Funny thing is, lots of them have been souped up a bit,
> or have a "T" in front of the identifier. Personally,
> I would not trade the performance or anything else for the
> possible reliability penalty that a turbo, or hi-comp
> pistons would bring. The engine manufacturers may feel
> fairly good about 9:1 pistons, but in absolute fact,
> as you increase the compression, there are penalties paid.
> They just become quicker and larger penalties as you go
> higher. So 9:1 may be just not much worse than 8.5:1, and
> so on.
>
> It's been a great discussion, and I just enlarged it to hopefully
> open the minds a bit. Nobody is trashing subie buyers. We're
> just cautious skeptics ourselves, and I personally just haven't
> grown the balls required.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
> >
> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
> > me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
> > who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
> > the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
> > enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
> > conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
> >
> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> > Les Kearney wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> >> 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 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a QB fuse and I have been impressed with the quality of the
workmanship, but I have spent a lot of time trying to route conduit through
the fuselage sides. From the plans it looks like the two holes on each
bulkhead(four per side) were supposed to be drilled to 3/4" diameter. To me
it looks like they drilled it to size for the regular size snap bushings
that are used elsewhere(Like cable runs in the tunnel)
Hence, I have had a heck of a time doing this. I thought I was being clever
by uising a 4" CARBON FIBER pushrod used for models to help guide through
the holes. A little light was going off in my head after several(Ton) of
attempts of dragging this rod inside there. Carbon/aluminum, Pencil/
Aluminum???
Now that there is a big unknown about how much carbon residue i left on the
primed aluminum parts, I am thinking about making some access panel infront
and inback of these two bulkheads, which will allow me to clean the metal,
re prime or Beo lube. I addition, route everthing correctly.
I just can't figure away to unscrew the side panels and remove them as many
are riveted in and gaining access to re rivet would be like taking out major
assembles(MAJOR)
Any Ideas, has anyone else needed to put in access panels there. It seems
non structural as there are so few screws holding things in place.
Hope this is a relief from the engine wars.
John G.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: access panels |
John,
Isn't the carbon fiber wrapped around a rod then sealed with resin to make those
rods? I wouldn't think you would get actual carbon scraping off, and pencils
use graphite right? not carbon.
Just a thought...
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance |
We have installed the Airflow Performance filter per Section 37 -
Fuel System.
The instructions with the filter "suggest" it should be removed,
opened, and cleaned after the first 10 hours and then annually.
How easy is it remove the filter with panel and the CT-10 throttle
quadrant installed?????
Also, how easy is it to remove the seats??
Inquiring minds want to know.
Richard Reynolds
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Graphite cloth is Carbon Fiber cloth. They are interchangeably the
same. Their galvanic nobility with aluminum is anodic/cathodic.
Separating the two in construction is a valued step. In reality it is
not a serious issue. With titanium, stress cracks can develop when
exposed to heat. Hence we never use pencil marks in aviation
construction.
Larger lightening holes with a flared radius for reinforcement would
provide valuable wire routing - for those like me on the really slow
build schedule. You might have to drill out and modify with a re-rivet
at the end the quick-build panel.
Those who have gone before us have valuable perspective in such routing.
Rick come on, flyboys should know this. Naval aviators had to.
John Cox
40600
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: access panels
John,
Isn't the carbon fiber wrapped around a rod then sealed with resin to
make those rods? I wouldn't think you would get actual carbon scraping
off, and pencils use graphite right? not carbon.
Just a thought...
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Rick
Graphite is elemental carbon so if a pencil left marks it may be a problem.
That is why we use sharpies when marking parts.
Cheers
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: access panels
John,
Isn't the carbon fiber wrapped around a rod then sealed with resin to make
those rods? I wouldn't think you would get actual carbon scraping off, and
pencils use graphite right? not carbon.
Just a thought...
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Now that we all understand that graphite is carbon. What about the
reaction. I cannot get a rag in there to clean it off with any cleaner, I
can't barely get the carbon rod to find the holes. The carbon rod which is
now bevelled on the end will leave marks on a piece of paper, not as well as
a pencil but you can see it. I put tape over the end to stop this, but what
about what has already occured, just shoot in Boe lube and try for a few
more twenty minute sessions to get the rod and then the conduit to go
through the holes, or cut the access panels do a thorough cleaning, line up
the conduit, but for all other purposes, the panels will probably never be
used again.
John
>From: Les Kearney <kearney@shaw.ca>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:20:30 -0700
>
>
>Hi Rick
>
>Graphite is elemental carbon so if a pencil left marks it may be a problem.
>That is why we use sharpies when marking parts.
>
>Cheers
>
>Les
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:11 PM
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: access panels
>
>
>John,
>
>Isn't the carbon fiber wrapped around a rod then sealed with resin to make
>those rods? I wouldn't think you would get actual carbon scraping off, and
>pencils use graphite right? not carbon.
>
>Just a thought...
>
>Rick S.
>40185
>
>do not archive
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner/Subaru |
Its simple for us until there are a few thousand of these altenatives I
would not bother.
We will be flying with children in the plane and I want proven engine
.simple as that! Safety is number 1.
I think its fantastic that others go the ALT route as we would not get
advancements without there courage!
So good on you guys!
Chris 388
do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Actually,
My main idea was I had used these R/C push rods before and never had them leave
any marks on anything. The final product is very hard and doesn't come off on
your hands or material like a "pencil lead" ;) The ones I used were very smooth
on the outside and hard as nails. I prefer the blue pilot pens to Sharpies.
Are mechanical pencils OK? ;p
I used a red pencil a lot working on airplanes though....lots of X's, dashes and
diagonals.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance |
Richard,
It's not easy WITHOUT the quadrant....Some posts a while back addressed this issue.
I am using a fiberglass panel/console assembly and it ain't gonna be easy
either. Others were considering relocating the fliter for just such a reason.
I think the seats need to come out, then you can access the tunnel cover so there
are a few more steps than most realize.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
When fishing wire runs on our air carrier birds, we use a simple brazing
rod with a limitless length of waxed electric tie string taped to the
end. Unlike an electrician's fish wire (available at the aviation
department of Home Depot) flat with a hook on the end for conduit. We
just go fishing with the straight rod.
When changing out flexible metal control cables such as the RV-10
rudder, We tie the terminated end to the string and fish the string by
pulling on the old cable. We tie a new replacement cable and then pull
the string back through fairleads, cables and pulley runs. We are often
pulling up to 45 feet on an aileron run. As yet no one has worn one out
to need the technique.
Another trick from HD's aviation department is their heaviest gage of
plastics weed wacker replacement line. It is great for determining wire
runs. It tends to bend at a similar radius to wire bundles. It's
flexible, it's cheap and easy to work with. Lancair used it to
determine their wire panels (4 x 8 sheets of plywood) to pre-wire
complete aircraft on the board in the avionics department. Randy DeBauw
(#40006)or the boys at Advanced might tell you the lengths needed for
the RV-10 from their doing his entire aircraft back in April of 2005.
During the FWF episode you can check wiring, cables and hose routing
with the stuff.
Electrolysis is not going to be a problem with the residue. Carbon just
like Hydrogen Embrittlement can change the molecular structure of sheet
metal. It becomes more brittle and cracks can ensue. Galvanic issues
are where two dissimilar materials such as Alclad and carbon fiber are
nested together in the presence of humidity. This is not a problem in
this application. Ask Van's Techline if you are concerned.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
<indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Now that we all understand that graphite is carbon. What about the
reaction. I cannot get a rag in there to clean it off with any cleaner,
I
can't barely get the carbon rod to find the holes. The carbon rod which
is
now bevelled on the end will leave marks on a piece of paper, not as
well as
a pencil but you can see it. I put tape over the end to stop this, but
what
about what has already occured, just shoot in Boe lube and try for a few
more twenty minute sessions to get the rod and then the conduit to go
through the holes, or cut the access panels do a thorough cleaning, line
up
the conduit, but for all other purposes, the panels will probably never
be
used again.
John
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Grease pencils okay but highly inaccurate. Anyone remember James McClow
and is color crayon sized cut lines?
Sharpies (which cleaned with alcohol) are great. Pencils either
physical or mechanical are VERBOTTEN. Not for layup, not for cut marks,
not nutten. All technical writing has to be in pen, so we have to
E.I.E. entries that we screw up. And I thought pilot logbooks were bad.
In sheet metal layup we use colors such as green, blue and red sharpie
for folds, shearlines and holes.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: access panels
Actually,
My main idea was I had used these R/C push rods before and never had
them leave any marks on anything. The final product is very hard and
doesn't come off on your hands or material like a "pencil lead" ;) The
ones I used were very smooth on the outside and hard as nails. I prefer
the blue pilot pens to Sharpies. Are mechanical pencils OK? ;p
I used a red pencil a lot working on airplanes though....lots of X's,
dashes and diagonals.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: access panels |
Hi John,=0A=0AI just put some access panels in the baggage floor. See my p
ost on 11/14/06 , it has some pictures.=0A=0AYou probably need two more acc
ess panels in the passenger seat floors. This will give you access to both
bays. I would create access panels in lieu of drilling out the panels as
the access panels will be usefull for maintenance. I thnk the access panel
s should have been designed into the kit.=0A=0ANiko=0A40188=0A=0A=0A----- O
riginal Message ----=0AFrom: John Gonzalez <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>=0ATo: r
v10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, December 4, 2006 1:31:37 PM=0ASubjec
Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>=0A=0AI have a QB fuse and I have been im
pressed with the quality of the =0Aworkmanship, but I have spent a lot of t
ime trying to route conduit through =0Athe fuselage sides. From the plans
it looks like the two holes on each =0Abulkhead(four per side) were suppose
d to be drilled to 3/4" diameter. To me =0Ait looks like they drilled it t
o size for the regular size snap bushings =0Athat are used elsewhere(Like c
able runs in the tunnel)=0A=0AHence, I have had a heck of a time doing this
. I thought I was being clever =0Aby uising a 4" CARBON FIBER pushrod used
for models to help guide through =0Athe holes. A little light was going o
ff in my head after several(Ton) of =0Aattempts of dragging this rod inside
there. Carbon/aluminum, Pencil/ =0AAluminum???=0A=0ANow that there is a b
ig unknown about how much carbon residue i left on the =0Aprimed aluminum p
arts, I am thinking about making some access panel infront =0Aand inback of
these two bulkheads, which will allow me to clean the metal, =0Are prime o
r Beo lube. I addition, route everthing correctly.=0A=0AI just can't figure
away to unscrew the side panels and remove them as many =0Aare riveted in
and gaining access to re rivet would be like taking out major =0Aassembles(
MAJOR)=0A=0AAny Ideas, has anyone else needed to put in access panels there
. It seems =0Anon structural as there are so few screws holding things in
place.=0A=0AHope this is a relief from the engine wars.=0A=0AJohn G.=0A=0A
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Regarding diesel options, I am watching the DeltaHawk diesel engine
(www.deltahawkengines.com) in the 200HP range. Yes, their production
schedule gets delayed but they have installed one in a Velocity with
impressive performance and economy figures. I'm still a few years away
from decision on an engine...
-- Doug Nebert
#40546 - wing slow build
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diesel options |
I watched at Deltahawk and Zoche diesel at OSH 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
I chose to fly with the Lycosaurus.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Nebert" <doug@mapcontext.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Diesel options
>
> Regarding diesel options, I am watching the DeltaHawk diesel engine
> (www.deltahawkengines.com) in the 200HP range. Yes, their production
> schedule gets delayed but they have installed one in a Velocity with
> impressive performance and economy figures. I'm still a few years away
> from decision on an engine...
>
> -- Doug Nebert
> #40546 - wing slow build
>
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance |
The seats do come loose without much trouble, but to take them completely
out you need to remove the cover panel over the flap control tube by the
rear seats (or some have modified the seats to allow them to be removed with
that panel in place). Sliding the seat back past the normal stop, however,
will allow access to the screws. I like the idea of cutting the forward
tunnel cover back underneath the panel a little bit to allow access to that
area without removing as much of the rest of the interior, with nutplates
and a backing plate to tie them together.
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 Rick
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Airflow Performance Filter Maintnance
Richard,
It's not easy WITHOUT the quadrant....Some posts a while back addressed this
issue. I am using a fiberglass panel/console assembly and it ain't gonna be
easy either. Others were considering relocating the fliter for just such a
reason. I think the seats need to come out, then you can access the tunnel
cover so there are a few more steps than most realize.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
--
7:18 AM
--
7:18 AM
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted
today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):
-----
Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a
group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna
120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle I
had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so they
were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc.
trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a
light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed
cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of
100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!
We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the
pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said
going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being
beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))
Charlie Walker
762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.
-----
-Dj
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
> me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
> then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
> who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
> with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
> track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
> out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
> the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
> for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
> literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
> enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
> LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
> conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
> one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
> that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear
....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning of
impending failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's Lycomings
(and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"
(with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to
the owners instead of fessing up. Let's be honest here ..... aircraft
engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds
rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.
FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......
and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have
electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,
the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let us
experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives
to the certified power plants.
No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I
doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most
likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the
sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer
all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.
Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
Linn
>
>
> But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
> secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
> kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to
lightspeed are Star Wars.
How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and up to
300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the real fishing
grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned the carburators
myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's Mexico gas. That engine
took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't cost $40,000.00 either.
Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy
installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod. Can
it be acheived. Brands????????
John G.
Do Not Archive
>From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500
>
>
>It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted
>today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):
>
>-----
>Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a
>group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna
>120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle I
>had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so they
>were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc.
>trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a
>light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed
>cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of
>100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!
>
>We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the
>pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said
>going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being
>beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))
>
>Charlie Walker
>762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.
>-----
>
>-Dj
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
It looks pretty well laid out and thought out for the builder, at least on
paper....Its actually very interesting.
mostly because I won't take the time and effort
>to engineer all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant
>on it. Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
>Linn
>From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:29:10 -0500
>
>
>Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>>You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
>>me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
>>then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
>>who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
>>with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
>>track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
>>out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
>>the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
>>for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
>>literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
>>enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
>>LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
>>conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
>>one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
>>that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>
>Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear .......
>which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning of impending
>failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's Lycomings (and others)
>way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if" (with apologies
>to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to the owners instead
>of fessing up. Let's be honest here ..... aircraft engines haven't changed
>in many decades ..... because of the Feds rules/regs while car engines have
>improved reliability over the years. FADEC is the most recent 'improvement'
>in our aircraft engine ...... and car engines paved the way for that ......
>Car engines have electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better
>BSFC .... well, the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let
>us experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
>ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives to
>the certified power plants.
>
>No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I
>doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most likely
>have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the sky .......
>mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer all the stuff
>required to hang some other kind of power plant on it. Other than that
>biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
>Linn
>
>
>>
>>
>>But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
>>secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
>>kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
>>
>>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>do not archive
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc
that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and
foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel
consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel
and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you
are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop
feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the
computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel
economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not
optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,
generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO
in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,
creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the
oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their
electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish
and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing
injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for
mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of
any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German
manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but
it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control. Nobody has done
much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for
aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is
economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps
the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other
compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would
have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another
point of failure. You just need to understand how different a
mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in
the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize
that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in
mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of
the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very
low power.
On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>
> >
> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses
> > me. If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,
> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy
> > who wants to experiment. The "old" engines, when run properly,
> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable
> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed
> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with
> > the same reliability). So if you're TRULY and honesty looking
> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will
> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be
> > enough track record on the others to show. In fact, if it takes
> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the
> > conclusion will not be positive. It's an older design, but
> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes
> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.
>
> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear
> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure. No warning of
> impending failure other than doing the SB. I hate SBs! It's Lycomings
> (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"
> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to
> the owners instead of fessing up. Let's be honest here ..... aircraft
> engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds
> rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.
> FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......
> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have
> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,
> the list goes on and on. Thank God that the FAA will let us
> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic
> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives
> to the certified power plants.
>
> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I
> doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong. I'll most
> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the
> sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer
> all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.
> Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.
> Linn
>
>
> >
> >
> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are
> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever
> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.
> >
> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> > do not archive
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Next question,
I was looking at intercom units and would like to put in the wiring to the
headphone jacks and wanted to know if anyone has experience with any of the
three units. All I would like to have, not too complicated to us and
install and one that functions well and one that I can hook up to say an
Ipod and or satallite radio(Stereo function)
AVCOMM DX-AC6PA INTERCOM
PM3000 PANEL MOUNT STEREO INTERCOM
Sigtronics SPA-4S Stereo Intercom
Any body ever used any of these brands?
John G
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Right on...and it has a prop already attached. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Gonzalez" <indigoonlatigo@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>> No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to
> lightspeed are Star Wars.
>
> How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and up
> to 300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the real
> fishing grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned the
> carburators myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's Mexico gas.
> That engine took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't cost
> $40,000.00 either.
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Eggenfellner |
Easy Choice on the intercom. the PMA8000SR. There's so much cool
stuff in those intercoms, it's one of the nicest things to have
in the plane.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Gonzalez wrote:
>
> No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to
> lightspeed are Star Wars.
>
> How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and
> up to 300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the
> real fishing grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned
> the carburators myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's Mexico
> gas. That engine took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't
> cost $40,000.00 either.
>
> Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy
> installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod.
> Can it be acheived. Brands????????
>
> John G.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>> From: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Eggenfellner
>> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500
>>
>>
>> It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted
>> today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):
>>
>> -----
>> Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a
>> group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna
>> 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar. Flying formation with this gaggle I
>> had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop. OAT was 25 deg. so they
>> were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc.
>> trying to keep from freezing. Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a
>> light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed
>> cockpit heater/defroster. The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of
>> 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!
>>
>> We all had a great lunch and departed for the island. One of the
>> pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me. He said
>> going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being
>> beamed 100 years into the future. He must be a Star Wars fan :>))
>>
>> Charlie Walker
>> 762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.
>> -----
>>
>> -Dj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|