Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:30 AM - -reply from downunder (Terry Wilson)
2. 07:01 AM - Re: -reply from downunder (Michael T. Ice)
3. 08:08 AM - Re: -reply from downunder (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
4. 02:37 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Mark Taylor)
5. 03:18 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
6. 03:40 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Mark Taylor)
7. 05:14 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Scott R. Shook)
8. 05:55 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Mark Taylor)
9. 07:50 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
10. 07:56 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
11. 08:23 PM - Re: -reply from downunder (Bill Schoen)
12. 11:32 PM - Official RV7-List FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) (Matt Dralle)
13. 11:39 PM - Official RV7-List Usage Guidelines (Matt Dralle)
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: | -reply from downunder |
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders
in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation
people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the
'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not
seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a
benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their
technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.
I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see
them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the
bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem
to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large
stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my
plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great
design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an
engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy
record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good
care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
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: | Re: -reply from downunder |
Terry,
Subaru motors work great, as do Mazda rotary, and some others. Try the archives on this web site for more information than you can read in a day. Also try the Vans Air Force web site at www.vansairforce.net/. I suspect most folks go Lycoming due to the vast knowledge pool and know reliability.
Good Luck with what ever route you choose and have fun.
Mike Ice
Anchorage, Alaska
RV-9, canopy done (finally) motor mount next then on the engine (Lycoming O-320
E3D)
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Wilson
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:28 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments about
the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a modern
Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Melbourne
Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are in some
ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes
of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliable
and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seventies.
Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines
as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering engine
ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc
being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is that the
2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is supported, as
in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine management
options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I dont
know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them in gen
aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket because of
the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems
as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors.
But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to
do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone has
considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have a good
feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Lycoming?
I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All these
engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like power
pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about
the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower
are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and therefore
the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design choices
in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine today.
I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very good so
I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it take good
care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | -reply from downunder |
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,
somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top
notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster
to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation
use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many
years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time
you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner
has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but
have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable
decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly
because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses
and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in
cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is
pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of
say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags
that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor
itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard
pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and
weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy
compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to
that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As
to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone
doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number
of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is
there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it
slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on
that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a
slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts
(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot
of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many
of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for
a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do
very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders
in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation
people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the
'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not
seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a
benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their
technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.
I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see
them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the
bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem
to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large
stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my
plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. <mailto:tompkinsl@integra.net>
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been
great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would
design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the
reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in,
take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: | -reply from downunder |
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a p
lane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospect
ive new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A &
P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away fr
om home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you goi
ng to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I
guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion
in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most
successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.co
m/rv7/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/r
v7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues tha
t he's had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a
considerable amount of time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but li
ke Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or some fu
el injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's quite pleasan
t buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do and t
hen you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to live wi
th it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16
+0000From: frank.hinde@hp.comTo: rv7-list@matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, th
ere are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken i
nto account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I hon
estly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of ho
urs on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pre
tty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a
LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear o
ut, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pre
ssed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs le
ss. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to th
eir old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compre
ssion version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are rema
rkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC s
ystem on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of d
ifferent driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...y
ou wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operatin
g regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is th
ere is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower f
or the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. i
f it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (a
nd thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of ho
urs on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of thos
e will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a v
ery good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very wel
l, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequat
e and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry WilsonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AMTo:
rv7-list@matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a mod
ern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Mel
bourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are
in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' option
s, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliabl
e and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seven
ties. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date
engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering eng
ine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-
up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is t
hat the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is su
pported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine m
anagement options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I d
ont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them i
n gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket be
cause of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the b
ig slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I gues
s Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't hav
e a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Ly
coming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All t
hese engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in tu
rn has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design c
hoices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine tod
ay. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very
good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it
take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | -reply from downunder |
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at
2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that
turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting
engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this
regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent
failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at
hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the
value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later
on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion
engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true
if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the
annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away
from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are
you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For
those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto
conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I
guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian
Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to
be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by
pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of
time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but
like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or
some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's
quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do
and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to
live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are
outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a
supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit
of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine
for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it
takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember
every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan
Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car
engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and
reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't
know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on
Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots
of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old
clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern
experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have
some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But
the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it
might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will
be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel
and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively
heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that
answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right
there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my
clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a
low compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these
motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you
then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture
right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a
number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do
one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong
suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus
making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is
still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast
airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of
the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has
put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to
me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that
way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what
they do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in
your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the
likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple
of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian
aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering
the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is
not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically
more reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars
from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and
accept more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm
considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru
(read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I
suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world
and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots
of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these
things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every
time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use
oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled
donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due
to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one
to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
<mailto:tompkinsl@integra.net>
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360
Continental instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other
way). I am curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a
Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall
size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90
cubic inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have
been great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone
would design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that
the reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming
in, take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | -reply from downunder |
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean tha
t the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automot
ive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Exper
imental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of the exp
eriment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obv
iously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and test
ed.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people
are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11
+0000From: frank.hinde@hp.comTo: rv7-list@matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 27
00RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turn
s at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine spee
d, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises
in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think ha
s a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure p
oints.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand
.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PMTo:
rv7-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a p
lane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospect
ive new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A &
P. Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're awa
y from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you
going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership? Sure
these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I gues
s we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in an
RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most succe
ssful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/R
V-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he'
s had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a consi
derable amount of time to his build. I feel much the same way that these ai
r cooled engines are old tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into t
he 20th century with FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose th
e FADEC route, and it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burni
ng 6.5-7 GPH. In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you wa
nt to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else
has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your deci
sion. Good luck! Markwww.4sierratango.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16
+0000From: frank.hinde@hp.comTo: rv7-list@matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, th
ere are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken i
nto account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I hon
estly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of ho
urs on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pre
tty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a
LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear o
ut, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pre
ssed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs le
ss. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to th
eir old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compre
ssion version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are rema
rkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC s
ystem on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of d
ifferent driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...y
ou wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operatin
g regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is th
ere is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower f
or the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. i
f it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (a
nd thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of ho
urs on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of thos
e will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a v
ery good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very wel
l, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequat
e and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry WilsonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AMTo:
rv7-list@matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a mod
ern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Mel
bourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are
in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' option
s, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliabl
e and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seven
ties. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date
engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering eng
ine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-
up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is t
hat the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is su
pported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine m
anagement options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I d
ont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them i
n gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket be
cause of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the b
ig slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I gues
s Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't hav
e a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Ly
coming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All t
hese engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in tu
rn has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design c
hoices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine tod
ay. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very
good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it
take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | -reply from downunder |
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought it
was too heated on one side or the other. It's nice to see a discussion on
the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming
clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it works
(if its not broke don't fix it). Also, the technology is catching up with
the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc, etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have seen
99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent the last 3
years watching Jan support his product and support those pioneers with his
early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I am a firm believer in
evolving with new technology (the computer engineer in me), and in a few
short years we may actually see more people softening up to the idea of an
alternative to the Lycoming. Resale is not a consideration for me at this
point because I have no intention of building this plane only to sell it. I
have faith in Jan and his commitment to the success of his company. If I
read correctly, Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and telling
some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the "Wiz-Bang 3000 -
nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a proven track record by
the Subaru.
My point is - technology changes. We can move forward and even contribute
in a small way to its success or we can use what we are comfortable with
what we know is working at the time. It's a personal decision as personal
as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean that
the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automotive
engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much of
the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those places
is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute for tried and
tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as people
are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
_____
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at
2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that
turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine
speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises
in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think has
a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure
points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a
plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the
prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by
an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away
from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you
going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I
guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in
an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most
successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian Meyette
http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat
of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by pioneering such a
task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but
like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or some
fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's quite
pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do and
then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to live
with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/>
_____
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy,
there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken
into account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I
honestly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of
hours on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is
pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say
a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear
out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard
pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs
less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to
their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of
different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler
operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go
wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is
there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower
for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one.
if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts
(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of
hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of
those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a
very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very
well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully
inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
_____
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in
Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people
are in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional'
options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over
here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliable
and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the
seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more
up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit
is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is
supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine
management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I
dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them
in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket
because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the
big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I
guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. <mailto:tompkinsl@integra.net> Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have
a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder
Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All
these engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn
has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design
choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine
today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is
very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and
let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref="ht
tp://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhref="ht
tp://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.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: | -reply from downunder |
I can remember when Jan was starting up his engine business, he had a well
worked out package, and seems like he's evolving with the demands of his cu
stomers too. He's certainly done a better job than the Crossbow Subaru peop
le. Are they even still around?
I do embrace new technology for aircraft, despite me going for the 'Lycosau
r' clone, I went with a Blue Mountain EFIS 1, for similar reasons Scott wen
t for the Eggenfellner. I like the EFIS a lot, but I'm still not quite trus
ting it enough to go out and fly IFR. It does have the occasional glitch wh
ich does eventually get worked out by the BMA gang. I guess we all decide h
ow we want to allocate our risks.
Here I am, hating Microsoft and just getting myself up to speed with the la
test copy of Window's Vista on my computer!
Here's to a discussion rather than a debate! Much more civilised don't ya t
hink?!
Regards,
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
From: sshook@cox.netTo: rv7-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply
from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:13:10 -0700
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought it w
as too heated on one side or the other. It=92s nice to see a discussion on
the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming clon
es have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it works (i
f its not broke don=92t fix it). Also, the technology is catching up with
the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc, etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have seen
99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent the last
3 years watching Jan support his product and support those pioneers with hi
s early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I am a firm believer
in evolving with new technology (the computer engineer in me), and in a few
short years we may actually see more people softening up to the idea of an
alternative to the Lycoming. Resale is not a consideration for me at this
point because I have no intention of building this plane only to sell it.
I have faith in Jan and his commitment to the success of his company. If
I read correctly, Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliverie
s.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and telling s
ome other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the =93Wiz-Bang 3000
' nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor=92 because of a proven track recor
d by the Subaru.
My point is ' technology changes. We can move forward and even contribut
e in a small way to its success or we can use what we are comfortable with
what we know is working at the time. It=92s a personal decision as persona
l as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook RV-7A (Building) N696JS (Res
erved)
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40To: rv
7-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean tha
t the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the automot
ive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear. There are indeed
lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are 'Experimental' aeroplan
es, but we really should strive to take as much of the experiment out of it
as possible for safety's sake. One of those places is obviously in the eng
ine room. There really is no substitute for tried and tested. It's definite
ly one of those debates that will go on for as long as people are building
these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the fire!! Markwww.4sierratan
go.comRV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11
+0000From: frank.hinde@hp.comTo: rv7-list@matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at 27
00RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that turn
s at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting engine spee
d, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance compromises
in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water cooled we think ha
s a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent failure p
oints.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at hand
.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark TaylorSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PMTo:
rv7-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the value
of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later on isn't
going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion engine in a p
lane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true if the prospect
ive new owner lives miles from you and will need the annual doing by an A &
P. Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're awa
y from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are you
going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership? Sure
these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For those, I gues
s we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto conversion in an
RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I guess the most succe
ssful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley. http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
/. For some people, like Brian Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/R
V-7Ahome.htm it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he'
s had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a consi
derable amount of time to his build. I feel much the same way that these ai
r cooled engines are old tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into t
he 20th century with FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose th
e FADEC route, and it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burni
ng 6.5-7 GPH. In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you wa
nt to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else
has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your deci
sion. Good luck! Markwww.4sierratango.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunderDate: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16
+0000From: frank.hinde@hp.comTo: rv7-list@matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated, somehow
inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top notch Subaru
Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster to be honest. I
then realised that converting a car engine for aviation use is not easy, th
ere are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many years for all the failure
modes to become apparent. Remember every time you add a component, you add
something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so
far in converting a car engine, but have all the failure modes been taken i
nto account and reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I hon
estly don't know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of ho
urs on Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are
lots of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is pre
tty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of say a
LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags that wear o
ut, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor itself is far from
being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard pre
ssed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and weighs le
ss. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy compared to th
eir old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to that,
but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As to using
oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone doesn't and it
uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low compre
ssion version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are rema
rkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a FADEC s
ystem on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number of d
ifferent driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one thing...y
ou wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much simpler operatin
g regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is th
ere is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it slower f
or the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on that one. i
f it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts (a
nd thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot of ho
urs on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many of thos
e will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for a v
ery good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do very wel
l, more highly adapted for their environment rather than woefully inadequat
e and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry WilsonSent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AMTo:
rv7-list@matronics.comSubject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your arguments
about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a mod
ern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders in Mel
bourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation people are
in some ways very conservative in only considering the 'traditional' option
s, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more reliabl
e and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from the seven
ties. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date
engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering eng
ine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is back-
up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a benefit is t
hat the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their technology is su
pported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of engine m
anagement options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things. I d
ont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see them i
n gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the bucket be
cause of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem to have as
many problems as any other engines often due to the large stresses of the b
ig slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my plane in the air, I gues
s Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental instead of
a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am curious if anyone
has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't hav
e a good feel for the overall size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Ly
coming? I read a lot of discussion about crank/propeller harmonics. All t
hese engines are run pretty slowly compared to auto engines. It seems like
power pulses ought to be measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially
wonder about the effect on durablility and reliablity when modifications to
raise horsepower are performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in tu
rn has to increase crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting
flange and therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great design c
hoices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an engine tod
ay. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy record is very
good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it
take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http:/
/www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com et=_blan
k>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums.matronics.com hre
f="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV7-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matron
ics.com et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums
.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | -reply from downunder |
Amen!...:)
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean
that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the
automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much
of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those
places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute
for tried and tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as
people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the
fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop
turns at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a
shaft that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by
limiting engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the
same in this regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all
represent failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the
job at hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop
up the value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale
later on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto
conversion engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is
especially true if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and
will need the annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when
you're away from home, all your tools and spares are in your
workshop/hangar? Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or
the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too.
For those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an
auto conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with
subaru's? I guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian
Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to
be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by
pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of
time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old
tech, but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with
FADEC or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and
it's quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want
to do and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else
has to live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/>
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are
outdated, somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a
supposedly top notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit
of a disaster to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine
for aviation use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it
takes many years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember
every time you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan
Eggenfelner has probably done the best job so far in converting a car
engine, but have all the failure modes been taken into account and
reasonable decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't
know, partly because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on
Lycosauruses and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots
of them in cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the
old clunkers is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern
experimental clone of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have
some issues....Mags that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But
the basic motor itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it
might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone
you will be hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so
little fuel and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out
relatively heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know
that answer to that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving
right there. As to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak
but my clone doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a
big deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to
order a low compression version if you want to run regular) quite
happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that
these motors are remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough
for you then put a FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the
mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be
efficient at a number of different driving conditions...Airplane engines
really only do one thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em
there. A much simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine
with less things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the
strong suspicion is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled
motor, thus making it slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the
jury is still out on that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a
fast airplane than a slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the
cost of the parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no
one has put a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not
clear to me how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000
hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors
are that way for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do
exactly what they do very well, more highly adapted for their
environment rather than woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been
interested in your arguments about the big thumper aero engines of
yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider
the likes of a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a
couple of builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors.
Australian aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only
considering the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size
planes is not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are
dramatically more reliable and last more than twice as long as the
motors in our cars from the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft
gurus suggest and accept more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but
I'm considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with
Subaru (read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the
source. I suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over
the world and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice,
has lots of engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and
last a long time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have
on these things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except
every time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old
tech, use oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big
air-cooled donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines
often due to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to
use one to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.
<mailto:tompkinsl@integra.net>
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the
360 Continental instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other
way). I am curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a
Continental 360 in an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall
size of the two engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than
a 90 cubic inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft
may have been great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way
someone would design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is
that the reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the
Lycoming in, take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | -reply from downunder |
Indeed Scott,
And if it wasn't for early adopters such as yourself then there would
never be a market for anything new in aviation...Just look at what has
come about in the last few years in the experimental EFIS, engine
management and autopilot systems.
You bet I jumped all over those!!!
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott R. Shook
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought
it was too heated on one side or the other. It's nice to see a
discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming
clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it
works (if its not broke don't fix it). Also, the technology is catching
up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc,
etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have
seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent
the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those
pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I
am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer
engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more
people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.
Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no
intention of building this plane only to sell it. I have faith in Jan
and his commitment to the success of his company. If I read correctly,
Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and
telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the
"Wiz-Bang 3000 - nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a
proven track record by the Subaru.
My point is - technology changes. We can move forward and even
contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are
comfortable with what we know is working at the time. It's a personal
decision as personal as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I mean
that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with the
automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much
of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those
places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute
for tried and tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as
people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the
fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns at
2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft that
turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting
engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this
regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent
failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at
hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the
value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later
on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion
engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true
if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the
annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're away
from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar? Are
you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For
those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto
conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I
guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/. For some people, like Brian
Meyette http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm it's proven to
be somewhat of a challenge with issues that he's had to overcome by
pioneering such a task and I reckon it's added a considerable amount of
time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech, but
like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC or
some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's
quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do
and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to
live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com <http://www.4sierratango.com/>
________________________________
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,
somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top
notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster
to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation
use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many
years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time
you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner
has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but
have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable
decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly
because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses
and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in
cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers is
pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone of
say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags
that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor
itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be hard
pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel and
weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively heavy
compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to
that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As
to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone
doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number
of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion is
there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it
slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on
that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a
slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the parts
(and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put a lot
of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me how many
of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way for
a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they do
very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of a
modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of builders
in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian aviation
people are in some ways very conservative in only considering the
'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is not
seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm considering
engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru (read Egg) is
back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I suppose a
benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world and their
technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these things.
I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every time I see
them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use oil by the
bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled donks, and seem
to have as many problems as any other engines often due to the large
stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one to get my
plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E. <mailto:tompkinsl@integra.net>
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been
great design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would
design an engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the
reliablitiy record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in,
take good care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f
="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
.
com/Navigator?RV7-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
p://forums.matronics.com
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: -reply from downunder |
This is an ancient, but worthwhile discussion. It does boil down to
being a personal decision and how we each arrive at our own decision is
perhaps as instructive as the knowledge of the differences, to one still
in the process of making that decision so I will chime in with my own
road to this decision for whatever it's worth.
I can tell you that I truly agonized over it for about 2 years!
I had a Cessna 180 for 22 years and loved the smooth power of the 6
cylinder O-470 Continental engine. Every time I flew an airplane with a
4 cylinder Lycoming engine, I admired the light weight efficient power
they produced but was not impressed by the vibration and seeming
difficulty with starting compared with the O-470. Perhaps one of the
strongest pulls for me was a desire for 6 cylinders. Another was the
shock cooling issue which of course resides in all air cooled aircraft
engines. I towed gliders with Pawnee's powered by Lycoming O-540s which
were smoother and had great power, but shock cooling of the cylinders
was a huge concern.
While magnetos are relatively simple and very reliable over the course
of a 2000 hour TBO they often are at the center of traditional engine
problems.
It is absolutely true that traditional engines are relatively simple
with few failure points, with very long histories of usage and
reliability and that is a very powerful argument in favor of them.
Perhaps their strongest, which was the source of most of my agony in
deciding, but in the end, the smooth power and modern engineering
advancements and perhaps most of all, the reputation of the integrity of
the Eggenfellner organization won the day and I made the decision
knowing the risks and I have chosen the new H6T engine to go along with
a modern 'all glass" cockpit, for my RV-7.
There you have it. You pays your money and makes your choices.
Bill Schoen
RV-7 90%
N727BN (res)
----- Original Message ----- l
From: Scott R. Shook<mailto:sshook@cox.net>
To: rv7-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv7-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
I have stayed away from this debate in the past only because I thought
it was too heated on one side or the other. It's nice to see a
discussion on the topic that is not a flame war.
There are arguments for both. To its credit the Lycoming and Lycoming
clones have been a proven design that has not had to evolve because it
works (if its not broke don't fix it). Also, the technology is catching
up with the introduction of electronic ignition over mags, FADEC, etc,
etc.
I personally am installing an Eggenfellner Subaru only because I have
seen 99% of the bugs get worked out over the years. I also have spent
the last 3 years watching Jan support his product and support those
pioneers with his early iterations of the E4 and now the E6 and E6T. I
am a firm believer in evolving with new technology (the computer
engineer in me), and in a few short years we may actually see more
people softening up to the idea of an alternative to the Lycoming.
Resale is not a consideration for me at this point because I have no
intention of building this plane only to sell it. I have faith in Jan
and his commitment to the success of his company. If I read correctly,
Jan is nearing the sold out mark for this years deliveries.
Who knows, 20 years from now I could be in a thread like this and
telling some other new builder to use an Eggenfellner and not the
"Wiz-Bang 3000 - nuclear fuel cell magnetometer motor' because of a
proven track record by the Subaru.
My point is - technology changes. We can move forward and even
contribute in a small way to its success or we can use what we are
comfortable with what we know is working at the time. It's a personal
decision as personal as what clothes you wear.
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 15:40
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Yep, I think we do actually agree Frank.... When I say old tech, I
mean that the basic design hasn't really evolved too much compared with
the automotive engines out there. Maybe I should've been more clear.
There are indeed lot's of things that can go wrong. I know these are
'Experimental' aeroplanes, but we really should strive to take as much
of the experiment out of it as possible for safety's sake. One of those
places is obviously in the engine room. There really is no substitute
for tried and tested.
It's definitely one of those debates that will go on for as long as
people are building these planes! We can just keep adding fuel to the
fire!!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com<http://www.4sierratango.com/>
RV-7 IOF-360 Flying!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:17:11 +0000
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Indeed Mark,
but I have to disaggree in that they are not old tech. The prop turns
at 2700RPM...Anyway you look at it you eventually have to have a shaft
that turns at the same speed as the prop...The Lyc does this by limiting
engine speed, the Auto needs a gearbox...they both work the same in this
regard.
Aircooled vs water cooled...I agree there are engine clearance
compromises in the aircooled motor but they last 2000+ hours...Water
cooled we think has a significant drag penalty...and will thus burn more
fuel..
A modern car engine is festooned with gadgets which all represent
failure points.
seems with the above in mind the Lyc is a better design for the job at
hand.
And so the argument goes on.
Cheers
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 2:35 PM
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Something else about real aeroplane engines.... They will prop up the
value of your plane. Everyone knows they're expensive and resale later
on isn't going to hurt you anywhere near as much as an auto conversion
engine in a plane, even if it is an Eggenfelner. This is especially true
if the prospective new owner lives miles from you and will need the
annual doing by an A & P.
Another issue is what if it goes wrong out in the field when you're
away from home, all your tools and spares are in your workshop/hangar?
Are you going to call an A & P to help you fix it, or the Subaru
dealership?
Sure these are downsides, and maybe there are some pluses too. For
those, I guess we'll have to rely on somebody who actually runs an auto
conversion in an RV. Have you seen any builders sites with subaru's? I
guess the most successful I've seen so far is Bob Paisley.
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7/<http://www.protekperformance.com/rv
7/>. For some people, like Brian Meyette
http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm<http://brian76.mystarban
d.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm> it's proven to be somewhat of a challenge with
issues that he's had to overcome by pioneering such a task and I reckon
it's added a considerable amount of time to his build.
I feel much the same way that these air cooled engines are old tech,
but like Frank says, you can bring it into the 20th century with FADEC
or some fuel injection system. I myself chose the FADEC route, and it's
quite pleasant buzzing along at 60%-65% power burning 6.5-7 GPH.
In the end, it's horses for courses... You decide what you want to do
and then you have to live with it. When you're done, someone else has to
live with it, which is worth bearing in mind when you make your
decision.
Good luck!
Mark
www.4sierratango.com<http://www.4sierratango.com/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Subject: RE: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:07:16 +0000
From: frank.hinde@hp.com
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Terry,
I used to think the same way you did...I.e Lycomings are outdated,
somehow inefficient and use lots of oil. I then used a supposedly top
notch Subaru Ea81 conversion which turned out to be a bit of a disaster
to be honest. I then realised that converting a car engine for aviation
use is not easy, there are many gotchas and sometimes it takes many
years for all the failure modes to become apparent. Remember every time
you add a component, you add something that can fail. Jan Eggenfelner
has probably done the best job so far in converting a car engine, but
have all the failure modes been taken into account and reasonable
decisions made about redcing those risks?..I honestly don't know, partly
because there are many hundreds if thousands of hours on Lycosauruses
and anly a few on H4's and h6's...Yes I know there are lots of them in
cars...But airplanes are different...I been there!
I'm afraid also that your thinking negatively about the old clunkers
is pretty far off base today, at least with a modern experimental clone
of say a LYC. Sure the certified versions still have some issues....Mags
that wear out, vacuum pumps?...Gimme a break!...But the basic motor
itself is far from being the piece of junk you think it might be.
If you put a mechanical fuel injection unit on a clone you will be
hard pressed to find a motor that goes as fast burning so little fuel
and weighs less. Note most of the Egg airplanes come out relatively
heavy compared to their old clunker comrades.
Can you run an Egg lean of peak? (LOP)...I don't know that answer to
that, but there is 1.5 Gallons per hour in cruise saving right there. As
to using oil, simply not true, sure any motor can leak but my clone
doesn't and it uses about a quart in 12 hours...Is that a big
deal?...don't think so.
The clones can also run premium mogas (you would need to order a low
compression version if you want to run regular) quite happily.
You can put electronic ignition systems on them too.
If you read john Deakin's articles you will find that these motors are
remarkably efficient...If its not 'high tech' enough for you then put a
FADEC system on it which makes it easier to get the mixture right.
You have to remember that car engines have to be efficient at a number
of different driving conditions...Airplane engines really only do one
thing...you wind 'em up to cruise power and leave 'em there. A much
simpler operating regime, thus its a much simpler engine with less
things to go wrong.
Cooling drag...Jury is still out on that one but the strong suspicion
is there is more cooling drag with a water cooled motor, thus making it
slower for the same fuel burn....But as I said the jury is still out on
that one. if it is true then it will be worse on a fast airplane than a
slow one.
Really the only clear advantage of a car engine is the cost of the
parts (and thus rebuild costs) are much less...of course no one has put
a lot of hours on the reduction gearbox either so its not clear to me
how many of those will be needed during the typical 2000 hours.
Anyway, just to point out that the old dynosaur motors are that way
for a very good reason...i.e they are designed to do exactly what they
do very well, more highly adapted for their environment rather than
woefully inadequate and outdated.
Cheers
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:29 AM
To: rv7-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: -reply from downunder
Hi Larry,
I'm a ' 7 builder in South Australia. Ive been interested in your
arguments about the big thumper aero engines of yesteryear.
I suspect you may be the type of person who may consider the likes of
a modern Subaru. I certainly am, and am following up a couple of
builders in Melbourne Aust installing Eggenfellner motors. Australian
aviation people are in some ways very conservative in only considering
the 'traditional' options, so the likes of Subaru in RV size planes is
not seen so much over here.
I know the cars we drive now have motors that are dramatically more
reliable and last more than twice as long as the motors in our cars from
the seventies. Why oh why cant our aircraft gurus suggest and accept
more up-to-date engines as well.
Ive only done my empenage and ready to order wings, but I'm
considering engine ideas at this stage as well. My concern with Subaru
(read Egg) is back-up etc being such a long distance from the source. I
suppose a benefit is that the 2.5 and H6 motors are all over the world
and their technology is supported, as in racing circles.
The other thing is that Subaru can run with any juice, has lots of
engine management options, and tech stuff to run well and last a long
time.
I'm interested in any thoughts or experiences you have on these
things. I dont know much about Continental or Lycoming, except every
time I see them in gen aviation they look old tech, sound old tech, use
oil by the bucket because of the large tolerances of big air-cooled
donks, and seem to have as many problems as any other engines often due
to the large stresses of the big slow motors. But if I have to use one
to get my plane in the air, I guess Ill just have to do it.
Terry Wilson
Burra, South Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.<mailto:tompkinsl@integra.net>
To: rv7-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv7-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: RV7-List: Continental Engine?
Several certificated manufacturers are using the 360 Continental
instead of a Lycoming (except Cessna who went the other way). I am
curious if anyone has considered and/or installed a Continental 360 in
an RV-7. I don't have a good feel for the overall size of the two
engines
Is the 6 cylinder Continental any smoother than a 90 cubic
inch/cylinder Lycoming? I read a lot of discussion about
crank/propeller harmonics. All these engines are run pretty slowly
compared to auto engines. It seems like power pulses ought to be
measurably distinct. Consequently, I especially wonder about the effect
on durablility and reliablity when modifications to raise horsepower are
performed. They all have to raise BMEP, which in turn has to increase
crank rap, increase the loading on the cylinder mounting flange and
therefore the engine case, etc. etc..
A three main bearing crank and 6 lobe camshaft may have been great
design choices in 1935, but probably not the way someone would design an
engine today. I suppose that the bottom line is that the reliablitiy
record is very good so I should just plug the Lycoming in, take good
care of it and let it take good care of me.
Larry Tompkins
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronhre
f="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums.matroni
cs.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List">http://www.matronics
com/Navigator?RV7-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums
matronics.com
et=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-Listp://forums.matroni
cs.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?RV7-List>
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: | Official RV7-List FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) |
Dear Listers,
Please read over the RV7-List Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) below. The
complete RV7-List FAQ including the Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/RV7-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
[ Note: This FAQ was designed to be displayed with a fixed width font such as
Courier. Proportional fonts will cause display formatting errors. ]
This FAQ can also be viewed in HTML online at the following address:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV7-List.htm
************************************************************
******* LIST POLICIES AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS *******
************************************************************
PLEASE READ. This document contains RV7-List policies and information
for new and old subscribers. Understanding the RV7-List policies will
minimize problems for the Administrator, and will help keep the RV7-List
running smoothly for all of us.
******************************************
*** Quick Start Guide to List Features ***
******************************************
There are many features available on the Matronics Email Lists and each
one is described in detailed below. However, using the List Navigator
you can quickly access the complete set of features available for this
List. The List Navigator can be found at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV7-List
****************************************
*** How to Subscribe and Unsubscribe ***
****************************************
Simply go to the Web Page shown below and enter your email address and
select the List(s) that you wish to subscribe or unsubscribed from. You
may also use the handy "Find" function to determine the exact syntax of
your email address as it is subscribed to the List. Please see the
complete instructions at the top of the Web Page for more information.
The Subscribe/Unsubscribe web page is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Note that you will receive TWO conformation emails regarding your subsciption
process. The first verifies that your subscription/unsubsciption request
was received, and the second confirms that the process has been completed.
You should receive the first email within a few minutes of your request.
The second conformation will arrive in less than 24 hours. You cannot post
until you receive the second conformation email message.
*****************************
*** How to Post a Message ***
*****************************
Send an email message to:
rv7-list@matronics.com
Your message will be redistributed to everyone currently subscribed
to the List.
*****************************************************
*** SPAM Fighter - You Must be Subscribed to Post ***
*****************************************************
When a new post is received by the system, the From: line of the message
is checked and compared against the current subscription list. If the
email address is found, the message is passed on to the List Processor.
If the email address isn't found in the current list of subscribers, it
is dumped. This serves to very effectively thwart 99% of the SPAM that
gets posted to the Lists.
Remember, however, that the syntax of your email address is very important
with regard to the configuration of your email application such as Outlook
or Eudora. For example, the following two email addresses may be
functionally equivalent, but only one would pass the Matronics Email SPAM
test depending on which was syntax was subscribed to the given List:
smith@machine.domain.com
smith@domain.com
Either email address syntax is alright, just be sure that you configure
your email application to match *exactly* the address you've subscibed to
the List.
**************************************
*** Enclosure Support on the Lists ***
**************************************
Limited posting of enclosures such as pictures, documents, and spreadsheets
is supported on the Lists. There are a number of restrictions, and these
are detailed below. Please abide by the rules put forth regarding the
content of enclosures.
These are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics
Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
bmp doc dwg dxf gif jpg pdf png txt xls
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules
could result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and
BE COURTEOUS!
Also see the section below on the Matronics Photo and File Share where
you can have your files and photos posted on the Matronics web server
for long time viewing and availability.
*******************
*** Digest Mode ***
*******************
Each day, starting at 12 midnight PST US, a new 'digest' will be started.
This digest will contain the same information that is currently appended
to the archive file. It has all of the headers except for the "From:"
and "Subject:" lines removed, and includes a message separator consisting
of a line of underscores.
Each day at 23:55 PST US, the day's messages as described above will be
combined and sent as a single message to everyone on the digest email list.
To subscribe to the digest list, use the same subscription web form
described above, and just select the Digest version of the List.
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Note that you *can* be subscribed to both the realtime and digest versions
of the List at the same time. This is perfectly acceptable.
Now some caveats:
* Messages sent to "rv7-list-digest" will be forwarded to the standard
email list. In other words, you cannot post messages only to the
digest List.
* If you are subscribed to both the regular List and the digest List, you
will receive the realtime postings as well as the digest at the end of
the day.
* If you reply to the digest email, your message will be forwarded to the
normal list associated with the digest. Important Note: Please change
the subject line to reflect the topic of your response! Also, please
*do not include all or most of the digest in your reply*.
****************************
*** List Digest Browser ***
****************************
An archive of all the List Digests can be found online in either plain text
or HTML format. These archives contain the exact Digest that was posted to
the Digest email list on the given day. The Digest Archives can be found
at the following location:
http://www.matronics.com/digest
*****************************************
*** The "DO NOT ARCHIVE" Message Flag ***
*****************************************
At times, your message may concern something that is revelent only to a very
small number of persons or to a limited area, and you may not wish to archive
it. In such a case, simply put the following phrase anywhere in the
message:
do not archive
Your message will not be appended to the archive, but will be sent to List
email distribution as normal.
**********************************************
***** READ THIS - Automatic Unsubscribes *****
**********************************************
Note that if your email address begins to cause problems such as bounced
email, mailbox is filled, or any other errors, your address will be promptly
removed from the List. If you discover that you are no longer receiving
messages from the RV7-List, go to the following Web page, and look
for your email address and a possible reason for your removal.
The Matronics Email List uses utility called the "Email Weasel" that
automatically looks though the day's bounced email for addresses that
caused problems due to common things like "user is unknown", "mailbox
full", etc. If the Email Weasel removes your email address from the
Lists you will find record of it at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/unsubscribed
If the problem listed on the web site above has been resolved, please feel
free to resubscribe to the Lists of your choice.
*******************************
*** List Member Information ***
*******************************
If you have not done so already, please email me your phone numbers and
paper mail address in the following format:
smith@somehost.com
Joe Smith
123 Airport Lane
Tower, CA 91234-1234
098-765-1234 w
123-456-7890 h
Please forward this information to the following email address:
requests@matronics.com
I have a file of such things, that I typically use to contact you when
there are problems with your email address. The information will NOT
be used for any other commercial purpose.
****************************************
*** Realtime Web Email List Browsing ***
****************************************
Recent messages posted to the RV7-List are also made available on
the Web for realtime browsing. Seven days worth of back postings are
available with this feature. The messages can be sorted by Subject,
Author, Date, or Message Thread. The Realtime List Browser indexes are
updated twice per hour at xx:15 and xx:45. You can also reply to a message
or start a new message directly from the List Browser Interface (coming soon).
You do not have to be subscribed to the given list to use the List
Browser Interface in view-mode.
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/rv7-list
*******************************************
*** Web Forums Bulletin Board Interface ***
*******************************************
A phpBB BBS web Forums front end is available for all RV7-List content.
content. The Forums contain all of the same content available via the email
distribution and found on the various archive viewing formats such as the
List Browse, etc. Any posts on the web Forums will be cross posted to the
respective email List, and posts to the Email List will be cross posted to
the web Forums.
You may view all List content on the Forums without any special login.
If you wish to post a message via the Web Forum interface, however, you
will need to Register. This is a simple process that takes only a few
minutes. A link to the Registration page can be found at the top of the
main web Forums page. Note that registering on the Forum web site also
enables you to send email posts to the Lists as well. You will also need to
Subscribe to the respective Email List as described above to receive the
Email Distribution of the List, however.
The Matroincs Email List Web BBS Forums can be found at the following URL:
http://forums.matronics.com
*********************************
*** Matronics Email List Wiki ***
*********************************
In an attempt to make it easy to store and find structured and often accessed
information, Matronics has installed a Wiki at:
http://wiki.matronics.com
The Wiki allows individuals to create web pages to contain useful information
for other users of the mailing lists and web site. Unlike an ordinary web page
where the content needs to be submitted to Matronics for inclusion, the Wiki
permits the users to construct their own pages and have them visible immediately.
While constructing pages for the Wiki is not difficult, some may not be
comfortable building pages. In that case, simply prepare the text and any
images and email it to:
wiki-support@matronics.com
One of the volunteers on that list will take your submission and construct
a Wiki page for you.
Often someone produces a particularly useful posting in email one one of the
Lists that would be of general interest. In that case Matronics may take that
post and convert it into a Wiki page.
*********************
*** List Archives ***
*********************
A file containing of all of the previous postings to the RV7-List is
available on line. The archive file information is available via the
Web and FTP in a number of forms. Each are briefly described below:
* RV7-List.FAQ
- Latest version of the RV7-List Frequently Asked Question
page (this document).
* RV7-Archive.digest.complete
- Complete file with most of the email header info removed and
page breaks inserted between messages.
* RV7-Archive.digest.vol-??
- Same as the file above, but broken up into small sections that
can more easily handled.
* RV7-Archive.digest.complete.zip
- Same as the RV7-Archive.digest.complete file above, but
in PKZIP format. Use "binary" data transfer methods.
* RV7-Archive.digest.complete.Z
- Same as the RV7-Archive.digest.complete file above, but in
UNIX compress format. Use "binary" data transfer methods.
Download Via FTP
----------------
The archive file is available via anonymous FTP from ftp.matronics.com
in the "/pub/Archives" directory. It is updated daily and can be found in
a number of formats as described above. (All filenames are case sensitive.)
ftp://ftp.matronics.com/pub/Archives
Download Via Web
----------------
The archives are also available via a web listing. These can be found
toward the bottom of the following web page:
http://www.matronics.com/archives
******************************************
*** Complete List Web Archive Browsing ***
******************************************
All messages posted to the RV7-List are also available using the
Email List Archive Browsing feature. With this utility, all messages
in the List are indexed, and individual sub-archives can be browsed.
http://www.matronics.com/archive/archive-index.cgi?RV7
*****************************************
**** High-Speed Archive Search Engine ***
*****************************************
You can use the custom, high-performance Matronics Email List Search Engine
to quickly locate and browse any messages that have been posted to the
List. The Engine allows the user to easily search any of the currently
available List archives.
http://www.matronics.com/search
****************************
*** File and Photo Share ***
****************************
With the Matronics Email List File and Photo Share you can share pictures
and other data with members of the List without having to forward a
copy of it to everyone. To share your Files and Photos, simply email
them to:
pictures@matronics.com
!! ==> Please including the following information with each submission:
1) Email Lists that they are related to.
2) Your Full Name.
3) Your Email Address.
4) One line Subject description.
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic.
6-x) One-line Description of each photo or file
Prior to public availability of the files and photos, each will be scanned
for viruses. Please also note that the process of making the files and
photos available on the web site is a pseudo-manual process, and I try to
process them every few days.
Following the availability of the new Photoshare, an email message will be
sent to the Email Lists enumerated in 1) above indicating that the new
Share is available and what the direct URL to it is.
For a current list of available Photoshares, have a look at the Main
Index Page:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
**************************
*** List Archive CDROM ***
**************************
A complete Matronics Email List Archive CD is available that contains
all of the archives since the beginning of each of the Lists. The archives
for all of the Lists are included on the CD along with a freeware search
engine written by a list member. The CD is burned the day you order it
and will contain archive received up to the last minute. They make
great gifts!
http://www.matronics.com/ArchiveCDROM
**********************************
*** List Support Contributions ***
**********************************
The Matronics Lists are run *completely* through the support of it members.
You won't find any PopUpAds, flashing Banner ads, or any other form of
annoying commercialism on either the Email Messages or the List web pages
associated with the Matronics Email Lists. Every year during November
I run a low-key, low-pressure "Fund Raiser" where, throughout the month,
I ask List members to make a Contribution in any amount with which they
are comfortable.
I will often offer free gifts with certain contribution levels during the
Fund Raiser to increase the participation. The gifts are usually donated
by companies that are themselves List members.
Your Contributions go directly to supporting the operation of the Lists
including the high-speed, business-class Internet connection, server
system hardware and software upgrades, and to partially offset the many
many hours I spend running, maintaining, upgrading, and developing the
variety of services found here.
Generally Contributions range from $20 to $100 and are completely voluntary
and non-compulsory. I ask only that if person enjoys the Lists and obtains
value from them, that they make a Contribution of equal magnitude.
Contributions are accepted throughout the year, and if you've just
subscribed, feel free to make a Contribution when you've settled in.
The website for making SSL Secure Contributions is listed below. There are
a variety of payment methods including Visa and MasterCard, PayPal, and
sending a personal check.
If you enjoy and value the List, won't you make a Contribution today to
support its continued operation?
http://www.matronics.com/contributions
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
RV7-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the RV7-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the RV7-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
RV7-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the RV7-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
- Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
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 |
|
| Subject: | Official RV7-List Usage Guidelines |
Dear Listers,
Please read over the RV7-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete
RV7-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the
following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/RV7-List.FAQ.html
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
******************************************************************************
RV7-List Usage Guidelines
******************************************************************************
The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the RV7-List.
You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein.
Failure to use the RV7-List in the manner described below may result
in the removal of the subscribers from the List.
RV7-List Policy Statement
The purpose of the RV7-List is to provide a forum of discussion for
things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals
are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver
high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie
among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals
requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of
the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established:
- Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit
posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long
lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc.
- THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be
relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it.
- Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive
that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and
terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and
responses.
- Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address,
aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line
about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid
bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary
space in the archive.
- DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is
easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the
web page or FAQ first.
- If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of
your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it
easy to find threads in the archive.
- When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your
response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the
reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that
quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive
can not be overstated!
- When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT
then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the
"reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your
response to the original poster. You might have to actively address
your response with the original poster's email address.
- DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something
to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I
agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent
to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large.
- When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to
comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly
contribute something valuable.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
- Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
-------
[This is an automated posting.]
do not archive
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! --
|