Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Eggenfellner
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

GRANSCOTT(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

The other month, I and our EAA group had the opportunity to visit the  Lycoming factory and do a tour.  While I certainly do not desire to be a  "water" carrier for any product, I think one has to look at a product as to why  it exists.  If the auto manufacturers were required to meet all the  aviation/FAA standards then the auto engines and automobiles would cost much  more than they currently do.  If all the auto mechanics had to be federally  licensed then repairs would cost much more.

  

 Lycoming is essentially making a custom, small run product.  Each  engine is being built for a specific individual with individual  specification.  Imagine that Chevy making each engine per the buyers specs  or that if an engine rebuild is required that the parts are all somehow routed  through GM since they were the first builder of the engine block.  Or that  of the engines being rebuilt many were being custom rebuilt by the original  engine plant?  Or that GM being investigated each time one of their  products fails, the way aircraft companies are vetted after an accident?   Certainly there are after market builders who may work differently  but they may still require parts from the OEM supplier.

  

 Additionally, aircraft engines are not made in volume.  They are  custom built, one at a time by a highly experienced builders.  Additionally  from what I could see Lycoming is a union represented.  Don't  know if that adds to the cost but I'd expect it does have some effect on the  cost...but I don't know if having a union shop adds to the quality or  detracts.  Today it can go either way. 

  

 I currently fly more than recreationally, about 300 hours per year and  certainly respect the folks that build the power plants and maintain them, as  I'm betting my life to their skills and so are you if you fly one hour per year  or 1,000 hours.

  

 My buddy Pete bet his future with Delta Hawk's new tech and now is  installing a Lycoming in his project.  I do hope that there will be many  power options for all aircraft especially when I get ready to order and  that new options come on the market...as I don't have a dog in this fight.   

  

 My current spam product have a Lycoming in the PA 28-235 and the J-5s have  Continentals and I sure liked the sales pitch of a number of engine suppliers  but so few have performed over time.  In case all have forgotten Porsche is  get involved in a single lever product with Mooney back in the late 1970's early  1980...that engine failed but from what I remember Porsche did support the  engine for a long time after they withdrew.  

  

 There are a number of options out there besides the majors but all come  with a higher pucker factor and the Eggenfeller is certainly in this category  from my knowledge.  They have very few engines flying and are promising a  lot to the market place.  They have not met the test of time from what  I know but they may at some time in the future.  So if wants to be an  experimenter in craft, build, and engine go that route. If not one can then go  through a mix of technologies to meet your "pucker" factor.  No choice is  perfect so go the direction you are most comfortable with.  

  

 I'd like to look at this decision making like my buddy and CFI/I looks at  students.  He final review of a student mentally goes like this...he'll  release a student for flight if he thinks he can trust his wife and kids in the  other empty seats with his student at the controls.  That's the way I'd  like to think about the engines in my aircraft...do I trust them to build a  product that will keep my family safe.

  

 Please don't kid yourselves, an engine failure at a critical time may  kill you; I don't care how much flying time and experience you  have. At some critical times your flying skills only mitigate the  accident scene does not eliminate it.

  

 Patrick

  [quote][b]

jesse(at)itecusa.org
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:53 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

And on it goes.



A lot of cars say in the manual to change the oil every 6000-9000 miles (or

even more), but common practice is still 3,000 for longest car life.  Do it

that often, at least with the oil that most people use, and your car will

not last that long.  That is something that I will never fully understand.

If you put that kind of money in a Porsche, are you really going to let it

go 20,000 without a change?  My uncle was just down and he says his farm

equipment required oil changes every 500 hours or so, but he does then every

250.  Different engines and different uses have different needs.  Also, I

bet guys racing Porsches change the oil a lot more often than 20,000 miles.

On the need to add oil on the aircraft engine, my understanding is there is

a different dynamic of how the oil is used/needed.  I am going on hearsay,

but air cooled engines blow off a lot more oil than water cooled or

something like that.  They also burn more.  Maybe it has to do with the

horizontal cylinders or something like that.  In N256H it will blow off down

to 9-10 Qts very quickly, then will hold 8-9 for a lot of hours.  N415EC

will hold 9 Qts for over 30 hours without burning more than a quart.

Comparing the quality of the engine to the frequency of oil change required

or the amount of oil added is not really fair IMHO.



I am sure there are a TON of factors included in the cost of an aircraft

engine versus that of a car engine.  Economies of scale is certainly part of

it (custom versus volume, as you put it).  I don't think that is a huge

part, though.  I know a huge portion (it would be interesting to know how

much) is insurance.  The insurance on a car engine pretty much just needs to

cover the cost of replacing itself if something goes wrong.  I haven't heard

of many (I am sure there are some cases) people dying in a car accident

because their engine quit.  They are usually just stranded beside the road.

There is probably more liability on tires than on the engine on a car.  On

an airplane, however, you can read reports all day of accidents including

deaths when an airplane engine failed, or hickup'ed, or lacked power.

Insurance there has to cover the lives of those being pulled(pushed) by that

engine.  I am sure they would argue that the cost of certification is

included as well, but that was done so long ago that I am sure it has been

paid for many times over.  I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons

they charge so much is simply because they can (enter the Subie to help this

problem?).



Lycoming hasn't come up with new technology (at least not ground-breaking)

in a long time for a couple of reasons that I see (and I am sure there are

others).  First, they went through the certification process which mad to be

extremely expensive.  Why does the Cirrus cost 2-4 times what the RV-10 does

for similar performance?  Also, the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't

fix it!" comes to mind.  It worked then and continues to work now.  Yes, it

is expensive, but it is still performs well and can be quite economical if

flown right.  They're going to ride that horse as long as they can, which

would be the case of Egg or anybody else that comes up with something that

really works right.



Do not archive.



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

W: 352-465-4545

C: 352-427-0285



--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Nicely written, and this was the point I was trying to make all along.

We just do not know. We can conjecture till the cows come home, but

performance numbers in the 10 are an unknown until we bolt the first one

up and fly it. I am hoping that I will get close to, or equal

performance, but it has never been about max speed for me, rather as I

have told everyone it is about non-stop between Orlando and PIT. I have

talked with Jesse and his dad makes it readily with the Lycoming, while

still having the required reserve, so if I can match that then I will be

happy.

As for longevity, I agree with you Tim, the unknown is the PSRU. I think

the engine is rock solid and will far outlast the various bolt on's. I

talked with Jan for awhile on this, and he explained how the engine

pulses, and the prop pulses are being damped, it made sense to me, but

as of now there is only one flying example of the new gear box. 

As for TBO, it is arbitrarily set at 2000 hours, because this is the

same as Lycoming. When the engines reach that number then they will be

examined and the number adjusted. The longest running one to my

knowledge is Charlie Walkers plane up in the NorthWest. He flys around

the islands out there, and has no question on the reliability. He always

gets his oil analyzed and posts the results. I think he is close to 1000

hours now, with no appreciable metal detected.

The reason I brought up crankshaft, was this was not the first recall,

rather at least the third I have been part of. There are many people

upset at the local FBO, as this effects their engines, and in the long

run might stop several of them from flying because of funds, sad but a

very real reality for many. The last batch of recalls effects 5k plus

engines. 

The Subaru is continually being upgraded to make things better. In my

opinion, an engine that has been around for more than 50 years

(Lycoming) should be rock solid, able to make it to TBO without top

overhauls etc, but they routinely do not. That is not to say there are

none out there doing it, just that it is not the norm. 

So, instead of jumping on us 400 or so individuals that are willing to

take a risk to make it better for others, how about a little

encouragement for those of us willing to step out of the box to make it

better for all?  

Here is to those willing to buck the norm "HOORAY", because if we were

not here, those two bicycle repairmen would never have gotten airborne! 

Caveat "This was not directed towards anyone, rather just a thought in

general, because so many are nay sayers rather than encouragers"

Dan 

N289DT 

Painting the wings

--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Being from the Rice Burner side of the house I do not take offense to

that term. Two of us spec'd an original CBR900RR fireblade, we

eventually got it to over 140hp on the dyno, with a wet weight under

390lbs. I got clocked at 167mph, and still had throttle and pull left to

go. So, no problems being known as a rice burner. "GRIN"

Dan

Do not archive 



--

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

I'm very sorry in advance, but driving to work brought more time to

think on this.  I feel bad in that I REALLY don't want to have people

think I'm down on them or their engine choice if they go Subie, but

I really think people need to honesty evaluate their objectives

when they make that decision.

Basically, any choice like this is one where there's a pie-chart

of reasons.  There can be MANY pieces of pie.  So you go Lyc,

it may look like this:  (this is JUST an example, and I'm JUST

trying to add to a constructive conversation)

Long term proven Track Record in Aircraft Installations: 45%

Big Bore Throaty sound (asthetics): 5%

Air cooling...no worries about water leaks at altitude: 10%

Commonality...easy to find a mechanic on field: 10%

Performance...known good performance: 20%

Available from reputable engine builder: 10%

So now you look at the same thing for a Subie...

Durable engine in auto applications:  30%

Smooth running, smooth sounding (asthetics): 20%

Possible somewhat lower cost: 15%

Liquid cooling...allows tighter tolerances: 5%

Low cost rebuilds: 15%

Easily available parts: 5%

Turbonormalized for high altitude performance: 10%

***

So you see from above that each engine will have some reasons for

choosing it.  It is just a plain fact that "Long term proven

track record in aircraft installations" cannot be part of the

Subie pie....just as it's not possible that "Liquid cooling...

allows tighter tolerances" cannot be part of the lycoming pie.

These aren't digs, and they're not always negatives or positives,

but they do illustrate that it REALLY takes a different set of

engine goals to come to this choice.

Additionally, Dan said something to the sort of: "When I'm

done and flying, I want to give tons of demo rides....<snip>

and once you fly behind one you will be sold."

Ok, Fair enough, again, Dan knows I'm not digging on him

personally....Dan and I are buds.   But, sit and seriously

ponder what it could possibly be that would turn your

opinion after a 1 hour demo flight.  Can something like

"Long term reliability and proven..." even be a part of that

equation?  I suggest that a decision that quick, will

ultimately be made on a pie-chart of values as above, but

you REALLY should make a list of what the pieces of pie

are, and see how you weigh the values.

To drag on longer, I was an earlier builder who looked at

Crossflow, DeltaHawk, and others.  Before I even BOUGHT the

kit, one of my goals was to do a homebuilt so I could get

the 3000 hour stated TBO of a diesel, along with it's fuel

flow benefits.  Well, I'm certainly glad I didn't wait

for the engine to be delivered, as I've got 177 hours

FLYING on mine.  But, additionally, there is absolutely no

reliable track record that can be given to the engines that

I was going to choose.  So I looked long and hard at my

situation.  What did I REALLY care about most.  What I

REALLY cared about, flying my 2 kids around the sky,

was that I would never, ever, have an off airport landing

due to engine failure, knowing I wanted an IFR bird. That is

the single largest piece of my pie.  When I made that decision,

the cost differences and others became null and void,

and my pie changed completely.

Do I have a dog in this fight? No, not at all.  I really

want to see some of these engines go and put on lots of hours.

I wouldn't call it a success until that particular engine model

has 10,000+ total hours on it, at least....and probably more.

But, the one interest we all have is this....insurance.  Right

now, there's no reason to ding them.  What if we rebalanced

the flying RV-10's differently.  Right now we have what, 59

-10's all running almost identical engines, with no engine

failures attributed to the engine.   What if all 59 or more

were flying subies, would they be as successful?  We just

don't know.  What if 10 subies land in our fleet, and it's

75 to 10, but we have 1 subie failure?  Does that mean anything?

Probably not.  But I sure hope that after all 17 are delivered

and flying that there is nothing that happens to any of them

that will raise rates for anyone else.  We're counting on

EVERYONE to build and maintain to high standards, lycs

and subies alike.  Beyond that, a good engine does not a

good engine installation make.  With a PRSU, and other

variables, you truly are experimenting, and we're all wishing

for the experiment to be a success.  The Subie block and

crank and pistons may prove to be the reliable part of the

equation.

Interestingly, the reliability choice of mine bled into

other areas as well.  It's the biggest reason why I was

plenty happy with 8.5:1 pistons, and a fairly standard

system.  John talks about engines he's known that blew up.

Funny thing is, lots of them have been souped up a bit,

or have a "T" in front of the identifier.  Personally,

I would not trade the performance or anything else for the

possible reliability penalty that a turbo, or hi-comp

pistons would bring.  The engine manufacturers may feel

fairly good about 9:1 pistons, but in absolute fact,

as you increase the compression, there are penalties paid.

They just become quicker and larger penalties as you go

higher.  So 9:1 may be just not much worse than 8.5:1, and

so on.

It's been a great discussion, and I just enlarged it to hopefully

open the minds a bit.  Nobody is trashing subie buyers. We're

just cautious skeptics ourselves, and I personally just haven't

grown the balls required.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Tim Olson wrote:

[quote] 

 You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses

 me.  If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,

 then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy

 who wants to experiment.  The "old" engines, when run properly,

 with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable

 track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed

 out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with

 the same reliability).  So if you're TRULY and honesty looking

 for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will

 literally be years or a decade or more before there will be

 enough track record on the others to show.  In fact, if it takes

 LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the

 conclusion will not be positive.    It's an older design, but

 one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes

 that simply drop them from the sky without warning.

 But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are

 secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever

 kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.

 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 do not archive

 Les Kearney wrote:

> 

>

> Hi Kelly

>

> My Pa28/180C has a circa 1966 crank, the engine was last overhauled in 

> 1979.

> I expect that the -10 will be the last plane I own and so I *want* a new

> engine. My fear is that I will drop $40k+ into a new Lycoming and then 

> find

> out that I have a major AD to deal with - at my expense of course.

>

> Whatever I do, safety is at the absolute top of my list. Engine wise, the

> question becomes which will be safer - a Subaru engine or a Lycoming 

> engine.

> I am not smart enough yet to know the answer to this question but all the

> responses to my earlier query have given me a lot to ponder.

>

> Cheers

> Les RV10 # 40643

> Do not archive

>

> --

kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Tim



The operative word in your first sentence is "inquiry". I have not made a

decision and have a lot of digging to do before I do. By default my engine

will be a Lycoming. It will take a lot more info to get me to switch to an

alternative although this is position is taken reluctantly.



I willing admit there is a ton of stuff about engines that I do not know.

The conflicting posts about running Egg engines and the ability to stand

high power settings suggests that there is a lot that other people don't

know as well. What I want to do is get to the point where I know that I am

making the right decision. I am not prepared to genuflect at anyone's altar

based on faith be it Eggs, Lycoming's or the Acme Whiz Bang Aircraft Engine

Company's.



That being said, I know of two people who have had catastrophic engine

failures flying behind O-360's which are reputably the best that Lycoming

has built. I have had a mag failure and am forever chasing minor oil leaks.

Given Kelley's crankshaft comment, how do I know that the new Lyc 540 that I

buy won't be the victim of some new form of cost cutting by Lycoming

management? I really don't want to install at 25 year old engine either.



So there you have it. I am on the horns of a dilemma and am trying to become

educated on my engine options. 



IMHO, the safest technology is not necessarily the oldest or most prevalent.

It would be intersecting to research how many Egg engines have had problems

and compare this with a similar number of Lycoming engines.



Does anyone know how to get this info from the NTSB / FAA websites? 



Cheers



Les

--

jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:39 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

SHHHH...don't tell anyone...I've owned three Honda motorcycles my self. 

CX500, 1100 Goldwing Interstate & VT1100 Shadow. (plus BMW's, a Husky, 

Harley's & a Zundap)       8*)

KABONG Do Not Archive



---

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Very well said, You bring up all of the points I used to make the

decision. What most people do not get to see is the agony of the

decision. I did not just wake up one morning and decide, rather it was a

long process that spanned two kits, a 7 and a 10. I have followed Jan

and his design for 5+ years. What I learned along the way was that the

engine would be built the best way he knew, that the support both before

and after the sale was what I was expecting. I also learned that

timelines were not important to Jan, delivery dates would slip, because

he was trying to make a better product not because he was unreliable. I

am sorry that Michael had a bad experience, because I asked many of the

same questions and have gotten the answers I was comfortable with. I

have had 2-3 trips per year down to the factory and have seen many

engines getting ready for delivery. Yes, they are shipped without some

components, but it is so that the builder can get on with the process of

installing them. Care packages are sent out, based on need and who is

flying first. One has to remember it is a small shop and being run to

the best of his ability. One thing I can say for sure, is that I will

get a quality engine, built to the best of Jan's ability, at an

affordable price, and my expectations from the vendor are being met and

exceeded every time I talk with him. He is always busy, but always takes

time when I call, or email questions.

You bring up the number one issue with the install of this package, and

that is the BUILDER. All of us think we know better and try to

re-engineer what has been known to work. With the Eggenfellner package,

allot of thought has gone into the install, and if you follow the

recommendations your chance for success are allot higher than if you

just do what you think will work. An example is the fuel pumps of

previous days. The pumps were mounted in the engine compartment, and a

blast tube for cooling was needed. Several builders decided they did not

need a blast tube, and one had a vapor lock issue that caused the pumps

to cavitate, and a loss of power was the result because the pumps could

not reprime. This was solved by a bleed bypass and the pumps moved into

the cabin. So yes feedback occurs and changes are made. It is

unfortunate that it takes this form, a plane loss for a change to occur.

But a deficiency was noted and the change made. That is how it was for

all of the older planes, and how they developed that OLD Lycoming,

things were tried, some worked, but many more did not. But each change

made the system more reliable and better for the loss that occurred.



Tim brings up a very valid point about a rock solid power plant and

wanting to fly IFR with the family. This has weighed heavy on me, and

was not a light decision. But like all of the other decisions I had to

accept personal responsibility for when building this plane, I choose

what I felt comfortable with. Does this mean I will take the family up

at 41 hours and make a long xctry in it. No, I will continue flight

testing, growing each leg farther and farther, building hours and

confidence in the engine and plane.

I would pose this question to each builder, we are building IFR

platforms, and putting in experimental instrumentation, is this any less

risky than an experimental power plant? I for one do not think so. With

the recent problems with Dynon, Chelton and others, it is all unknown,

and failure modes are unknown. But what can be done to alleviate that

unknown? Testing, and confidence building in the platform of choice.

BUILD IT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, TEST IT, AND HAVE FUN.

Dan

N289DT



  



--

james.k.hovis(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Here's some thoughts from a hopefully near future builder (and

professional aircraft engineer too):



I want a powerplant that has these basic traits:



1) Can deliver power to a prop within the recommended range set by Van's

2) Delivers that power without a major weight penalty in my overall

payload (keep useful load and gross weight within the Van's limits)

3) Easily operated.

4) Good fuel consumption

5) Relatively simple installation

6) Can use available fuels.

7) Reliable long-term operation.



Those are the basics. Does a Lycosaur/Contidino apply? You bet. Does

the Subie apply? I'd need to study it more but so far it looks like it

would fit the bill too, but it's not out of the range of possible

powerplants at this time. Are there others? Yes.



However, everything in aircraft design is a trade-off. To do

something, you'll have to "pay" for it some way. Let's say I find a

good used 210 HP Continental for a very low price to use in my future

'-10, I'm trading some of that top-end performance those of you with

260HP Lycs are seeing. The difference would be noticable to most of

you with the "big" engines, but to the 172 driver, it's an

improvement.



Now let's look at the Subie installation. Needs a PSRU - I think that

can degrade reliability somewhat. Needs water and a radiator - adds

weight and complexity to the installation. Can run on Mogas - BIG PLUS

to me, don't know how long 100LL will be available - Vapor lock issues

can be dealt with in smart fuel system design to mimize heat exposure,

better in a water cooled engine. Initial aquisistion and rebuild cost

- BIG plus. I can replace the Subie block every 500 hrs for the cost

of a Lyc overhaul at 2000 hrs and still save money. Easy operation -

don;t know about that one. Heat management seems to add to the

complexity of operation. Overall reliability - I want to see a few run

long-term before I'd commit.



Really, trying to compare a car engine to an airplane is like apples

to oranges. THey just aren't designed for the same type of operations.

I had a discussion with my A&P a long time ago about this, if you want

an "alternate" engine that compares most closely to aircraft

applications, look to tractor/heavy equipment engines. These engines

are designed to operate at high power settings on a continuous basis

for long periods of time. The main difference between them and

aircraft engines is weight is NOT a critical aspect of their design.

Same goes for car engines. Now do I think a Cat engine can be adapted

for aircraft? No, but how that engine is put together is a lot like

airplane engines.



Food for thought



JKH



On 12/4/06, Lloyd, Daniel R. <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> wrote:

[quote] 



 Very well said, You bring up all of the points I used to make the

 decision. What most people do not get to see is the agony of the

 decision. I did not just wake up one morning and decide, rather it was a

 long process that spanned two kits, a 7 and a 10. I have followed Jan

 and his design for 5+ years. What I learned along the way was that the

 engine would be built the best way he knew, that the support both before

 and after the sale was what I was expecting. I also learned that

 timelines were not important to Jan, delivery dates would slip, because

 he was trying to make a better product not because he was unreliable. I

 am sorry that Michael had a bad experience, because I asked many of the

 same questions and have gotten the answers I was comfortable with. I

 have had 2-3 trips per year down to the factory and have seen many

 engines getting ready for delivery. Yes, they are shipped without some

 components, but it is so that the builder can get on with the process of

 installing them. Care packages are sent out, based on need and who is

 flying first. One has to remember it is a small shop and being run to

 the best of his ability. One thing I can say for sure, is that I will

 get a quality engine, built to the best of Jan's ability, at an

 affordable price, and my expectations from the vendor are being met and

 exceeded every time I talk with him. He is always busy, but always takes

 time when I call, or email questions.

 You bring up the number one issue with the install of this package, and

 that is the BUILDER. All of us think we know better and try to

 re-engineer what has been known to work. With the Eggenfellner package,

 allot of thought has gone into the install, and if you follow the

 recommendations your chance for success are allot higher than if you

 just do what you think will work. An example is the fuel pumps of

 previous days. The pumps were mounted in the engine compartment, and a

 blast tube for cooling was needed. Several builders decided they did not

 need a blast tube, and one had a vapor lock issue that caused the pumps

 to cavitate, and a loss of power was the result because the pumps could

 not reprime. This was solved by a bleed bypass and the pumps moved into

 the cabin. So yes feedback occurs and changes are made. It is

 unfortunate that it takes this form, a plane loss for a change to occur.

 But a deficiency was noted and the change made. That is how it was for

 all of the older planes, and how they developed that OLD Lycoming,

 things were tried, some worked, but many more did not. But each change

 made the system more reliable and better for the loss that occurred.



 Tim brings up a very valid point about a rock solid power plant and

 wanting to fly IFR with the family. This has weighed heavy on me, and

 was not a light decision. But like all of the other decisions I had to

 accept personal responsibility for when building this plane, I choose

 what I felt comfortable with. Does this mean I will take the family up

 at 41 hours and make a long xctry in it. No, I will continue flight

 testing, growing each leg farther and farther, building hours and

 confidence in the engine and plane.

 I would pose this question to each builder, we are building IFR

 platforms, and putting in experimental instrumentation, is this any less

 risky than an experimental power plant? I for one do not think so. With

 the recent problems with Dynon, Chelton and others, it is all unknown,

 and failure modes are unknown. But what can be done to alleviate that

 unknown? Testing, and confidence building in the platform of choice.

 BUILD IT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, TEST IT, AND HAVE FUN.

 Dan

 N289DT



 --

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted

today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):



-----

Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a

group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna

120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar.  Flying formation with this gaggle I

had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop.  OAT was 25 deg. so they

were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc.

trying to keep from freezing.  Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a

light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed

cockpit heater/defroster.  The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of

100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!



We all had a great lunch and departed for the island.  One of the

pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me.  He said

going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being

beamed 100 years into the future.  He must be a Star Wars fan :>))



Charlie Walker

762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.

-----



-Dj

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

Tim Olson wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses

 me.  If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,

 then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy

 who wants to experiment.  The "old" engines, when run properly,

 with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable

 track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed

 out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with

 the same reliability).  So if you're TRULY and honesty looking

 for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will

 literally be years or a decade or more before there will be

 enough track record on the others to show.  In fact, if it takes

 LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the

 conclusion will not be positive.    It's an older design, but

 one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes

 that simply drop them from the sky without warning. 


	


Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear 

...... which leads to broken valves and engine failure.  No warning of 

impending failure other than doing the SB.  I hate SBs!  It's Lycomings 

(and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if" 

(with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to 

the owners instead of fessing up.  Let's be honest here ..... aircraft 

engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds 

rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years. 

 FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ...... 

and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have 

electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well, 

the list goes on and on.  Thank God that the FAA will let us 

experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic 

ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives 

to the certified power plants.



No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I 

doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong.  I'll most 

likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the 

sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer 

all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it. 

 Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.

Linn

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are

 secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever

 kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.



 Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 do not archive

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to 

lightspeed are Star Wars.



How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and up to 

300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the real fishing 

grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned the carburators 

myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's Mexico gas. That engine 

took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't cost $40,000.00 either.



Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy 

installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod.  Can 

it be acheived. Brands????????



John G.



Do Not Archive

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Eggenfellner

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500






It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted

today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):



-----

Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a

group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna

120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar.  Flying formation with this gaggle I

had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop.  OAT was 25 deg. so they

were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc.

trying to keep from freezing.  Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a

light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed

cockpit heater/defroster.  The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of

100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!



We all had a great lunch and departed for the island.  One of the

pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me.  He said

going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being

beamed 100 years into the future.  He must be a Star Wars fan :>))



Charlie Walker

762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.

-----



-Dj

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

It looks pretty well laid out and thought out for the builder, at least on 

paper....Its actually very interesting.

mostly because I won't take the time and effort

 	  Quote: 	
		  to engineer all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant 

on it. Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.

Linn

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>

Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Eggenfellner

Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:29:10 -0500

Tim Olson wrote:

>

>

>You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses

>me.  If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,

>then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy

>who wants to experiment.  The "old" engines, when run properly,

>with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable

>track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed

>out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with

>the same reliability).  So if you're TRULY and honesty looking

>for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will

>literally be years or a decade or more before there will be

>enough track record on the others to show.  In fact, if it takes

>LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the

>conclusion will not be positive.    It's an older design, but

>one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes

>that simply drop them from the sky without warning.

Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear ....... 

which leads to broken valves and engine failure.  No warning of impending 

failure other than doing the SB.  I hate SBs!  It's Lycomings (and others) 

way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if" (with apologies 

to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to the owners instead 

of fessing up.  Let's be honest here ..... aircraft engines haven't changed 

in many decades ..... because of the Feds rules/regs while car engines have 

improved reliability over the years. FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' 

in our aircraft engine ...... and car engines paved the way for that ...... 

Car engines have electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better 

BSFC .... well, the list goes on and on.  Thank God that the FAA will let 

us experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic 

ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives to 

the certified power plants.

No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I 

doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong.  I'll most likely 

have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the sky ....... 

mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer all the stuff 

required to hang some other kind of power plant on it. Other than that 

biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.

Linn

>

>

>But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are

>secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever

>kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.

>

>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

>do not archive

apilot2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc

that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and

foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel

consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel

and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you

are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop

feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the

computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel

economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not

optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,

generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO

in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,

creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the

oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their

electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish

and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing

injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for

mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of

any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German

manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but

it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control.  Nobody has done

much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for

aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is

economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps

the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other

compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would

have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another

point of failure.   You just need to understand how different a

mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in

the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize

that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in

mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of

the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very

low power.

On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Tim Olson wrote:

 > 

 >

 > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses

 > me.  If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,

 > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy

 > who wants to experiment.  The "old" engines, when run properly,

 > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable

 > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed

 > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with

 > the same reliability).  So if you're TRULY and honesty looking

 > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will

 > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be

 > enough track record on the others to show.  In fact, if it takes

 > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the

 > conclusion will not be positive.    It's an older design, but

 > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes

 > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.

 Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear

 ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure.  No warning of

 impending failure other than doing the SB.  I hate SBs!  It's Lycomings

 (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"

 (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to

 the owners instead of fessing up.  Let's be honest here ..... aircraft

 engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds

 rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.

  FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......

 and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have

 electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,

 the list goes on and on.  Thank God that the FAA will let us

 experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic

 ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives

 to the certified power plants.

 No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I

 doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong.  I'll most

 likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the

 sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer

 all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.

  Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.

 Linn

 >

 >

 > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are

 > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever

 > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.

 >

 > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

 > do not archive

jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

Right on...and it has a prop already attached.    KABONG Do Not Archive



---

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: Eggenfellner

Easy Choice on the intercom.  the PMA8000SR.  There's so much cool

stuff in those intercoms, it's one of the nicest things to have

in the plane.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

John Gonzalez wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 No Beaming in Star Wars...you mean Star Trek! Hyperdrives and jumps to 

 lightspeed are Star Wars.

 

 How come no one ever mentions Yamaha outboard motors, Water cooled and 

 up to 300HP and run at full power for several hours to get out to the 

 real fishing grounds. My 90Hp Yamaha never had a problem and I cleaned 

 the carburators myself on several occassions...Magna Sin, that's Mexico 

 gas. That engine took a lick'en and it did it in saltwater. It didn't 

 cost $40,000.00 either.

 

 Time to move on. How about Intercoms any recommendations. Want easy 

 installation, stereo sound and plays satallite radio or from an Ipod.  

 Can it be acheived. Brands????????

 

 John G.

 

 Do Not Archive

 

 

> From: Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net>

> Reply-To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

> Subject: Re: Eggenfellner

> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:22:26 -0500

>

> 

>

> It is postings like the following that really spark my interest (posted

> today on the SubaruAircraft Yahoo list):

>

> -----

> Yesterday we had a break in the weather (snow & high winds) so we had a

> group gaggle fly off the island for lunch. We had 3 Super Cubs, 1 Cessna

> 120 and my E-Sube powered GlaStar.  Flying formation with this gaggle I

> had to reduce power to 3000 eng. rpm/1650 prop.  OAT was 25 deg. so they

> were all dressed in insulated coveralls, heavy coats, stocking caps etc.

> trying to keep from freezing.  Meanwhile I was very comfortable in a

> light shirt basking in the heat from my hot coolant multi fan speed

> cockpit heater/defroster.  The best part was, they were burning 8 gph of

> 100 LL while I was only burning 2.3 GPH of auto fuel !!!

>

> We all had a great lunch and departed for the island.  One of the

> pilot/passengers in one of the Super Cubs rode back with me.  He said

> going from the Super Cub/Lyc. to the GlaStar/Subaru was like being

> beamed 100 years into the future.  He must be a Star Wars fan :>))

>

> Charlie Walker

> 762 TROUBLE FREE hrs.

> -----

>

> -Dj

>

>

jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Thanks Kelly for your detailed data but since I 

wanted to built an airplane I can service & keep running all by myself I 

think I'll stick with the Old boys. Ya mix air & fuel in the proper amounts 

(I control both), run it thru a KISS engine without all the GobbildyGoop 

"extra" items required in car engines & go flying. Somehow I just can't see 

myself landing at some small airport, have a problem and calling the local 

auto dealership & pay for a "housecall" to the airport.  As I said before. 

YOU make YOUR choice, spend YOUR money & take YOUR chances. That's what make 

experiential aircraft building so great.  KABONG  Do Not Archive



---

david555(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

What does KABONG mean.

---

ainut(at)hiwaay.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Kelly, I suggest you become familiar with the MegaSquirt family of ECU's.



Tim, I suggest you look at the actual history of those "old" engines.  

They Lycs and Conti's really don't do so well at all.  Just ask any A&P, 

or owner.



IMO, Egg is Way too expensive.



David M.

Kelly McMullen wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc

 that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and

 foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel

 consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel

 and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you

 are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop

 feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the

 computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel

 economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not

 optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,

 generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO

 in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,

 creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the

 oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their

 electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish

 and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing

 injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for

 mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of

 any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German

 manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but

 it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control.  Nobody has done

 much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for

 aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is

 economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps

 the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other

 compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would

 have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another

 point of failure.   You just need to understand how different a

 mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in

 the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize

 that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in

 mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of

 the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very

 low power.



 On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:



> 

> <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>

>

> Tim Olson wrote:

>

> > 

> >

> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses

> > me.  If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,

> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy

> > who wants to experiment.  The "old" engines, when run properly,

> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable

> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed

> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with

> > the same reliability).  So if you're TRULY and honesty looking

> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will

> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be

> > enough track record on the others to show.  In fact, if it takes

> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the

> > conclusion will not be positive.    It's an older design, but

> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes

> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.

>

> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear

> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure.  No warning of

> impending failure other than doing the SB.  I hate SBs!  It's Lycomings

> (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"

> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to

> the owners instead of fessing up.  Let's be honest here ..... aircraft

> engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds

> rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.

>  FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......

> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have

> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,

> the list goes on and on.  Thank God that the FAA will let us

> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic

> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives

> to the certified power plants.

>

> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I

> doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong.  I'll most

> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the

> sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer

> all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.

>  Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.

> Linn

> >

> >

> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are

> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever

> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.

> >

> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

> > do not archive

pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: Eggenfellner

Yup, them O-2 sensors don't take a liken to lead ..... but that'll go 

away.   You could always use the EGT as a data input instead of the O-2 

sensor to get around the lead problem, and with each cylinder being 

monitored you can have selective injection VS the lost-charge method we 

now use.  The possibilities are great.  Someone with far more time than 

I have could whip up a computer controlled lycosaur with just a few 

minor changes to the injection system (the injectors probably won't just 

screw in) and have a really fine powerplant.  Redundant computer will be 

like redundant ignition (which is becoming more popular in A/C) ....... 

and you can buy replacement PROMs for just about any auto computer to 

fit the mission ...... and if it's not available off-the-shelf it's a 

small task to roll your own.



Maybe at some time down the road I'll have the time and interest to 

explore the concept, but at this stage of my life, supplying stuff to 

the experimental community isn't part of my game plan.  I want to build 

and fly, and the quickest way seems to be the old fashioned way.

Linn



do not archive

Kelly McMullen wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Well, I doubt you will find a car that does better than th 0.42 bsfc

 that most any Lycoming can achieve. Their computers are first and

 foremost to eliminate emissions, with a side benefit of reducing fuel

 consumption and increasing reliability. But they require unleaded fuel

 and oxygen sensors to achieve the fuel control, not feasible if you

 are ever going to run 100LL. If you took away their closed loop

 feedback fuel computers, they would lose 90% of the benefit of the

 computer..see what happens when you have a failed O2 sensor for fuel

 economy. O2 sensors can't live with any lead. Their systems are not

 optimized for economy, because doing so would maximize NOx emissions,

 generating more smog. They have to run a little rich to have some CO

 in the exhaust to work with the reducing portion of the catalyst,

 creating N2 and O2 from NOx, before the exhaust goes into the

 oxidizing chamber to turn CO to CO2 and HC to H2O and CO2. Their

 electronic injectors(not all cars have them) are sensitive to varnish

 and gum and dirt, which is why you see a lot of service places pushing

 injection cleaning, and a detergency specification had to be added for

 mogas. When a single injector electronics fail, so does delivery of

 any fuel to that cylinder..not what you really want in air. The German

 manufacturers use a good Bosch continuous flow injection system, but

 it too requires closed loop feedback mixture control.  Nobody has done

 much development work on what mixture programming would be optimal for

 aircraft, partly because there isn't an optimum..if your mission is

 economy/max range you can go max lean at the lowest power that keeps

 the plane in the air. If you want 75% cruise, then there are other

 compromises to make. No one setting fits all situations, so you would

 have to have some form of override or mode select switch...another

 point of failure.   You just need to understand how different a

 mission daily commute on gridlocked freeways is from tooling around in

 the air at more than double the ground speed limit. Once you realize

 that most autos cruise at 15-20% power for speeds below 70mph, in

 mostly a varying load situation, vs aircraft running 75% power 95% of

 the time, and the rest either climbing at 100%, OR descending at very

 low power.



 On 12/4/06, linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:



> 

> <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>

>

> Tim Olson wrote:

>

> > 

> >

> > You see, it's this exact type of inquiry that completely confuses

> > me.  If someone is looking at it where safety is their #1 concern,

> > then the engine choice is much much more obvious than the guy

> > who wants to experiment.  The "old" engines, when run properly,

> > with well built planes, have an extremely, EXTREMELY reliable

> > track record. (the 1996-2002 cranks if those dates Kelly pointed

> > out are correct, are the only real ones that don't follow with

> > the same reliability).  So if you're TRULY and honesty looking

> > for long term safety, there is only one choice....as it will

> > literally be years or a decade or more before there will be

> > enough track record on the others to show.  In fact, if it takes

> > LESS time to come to a conclusion, then that will mean the

> > conclusion will not be positive.    It's an older design, but

> > one that has been well proven to not have extreme failure modes

> > that simply drop them from the sky without warning.

>

> Well, there is the Lycosaur SB covering excessive walve guide wear

> ....... which leads to broken valves and engine failure.  No warning of

> impending failure other than doing the SB.  I hate SBs!  It's Lycomings

> (and others) way of saying ..... "you might have a serious problem if"

> (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) ....... and shifting the liability to

> the owners instead of fessing up.  Let's be honest here ..... aircraft

> engines haven't changed in many decades ..... because of the Feds

> rules/regs while car engines have improved reliability over the years.

>  FADEC is the most recent 'improvement' in our aircraft engine ......

> and car engines paved the way for that ...... Car engines have

> electronic fuel injection with automatic leaning, better BSFC .... well,

> the list goes on and on.  Thank God that the FAA will let us

> experimental airplane builders use the latest technology (electronic

> ignition with variable advance for one) so we CAN look at alternatives

> to the certified power plants.

>

> No matter what logic a builder uses to come to HIS conclusion ...... I

> doubt that any rational thought can be considered wrong.  I'll most

> likely have a certified type of engine in my bird when it takes to the

> sky ....... mostly because I won't take the time and effort to engineer

> all the stuff required to hang some other kind of power plant on it.

>  Other than that biggie, I can't see any reason not to be creative.

> Linn

> >

> >

> > But then again, I believe that many who claim they want safety #1 are

> > secretly lying to themselves every day because they drank whatever

> > kool-ade it was at the time, be it engines, instruments, or whatever.

> >

> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

> > do not archive

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum