Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

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

Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

eagerlee

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 35

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Did somebody say they were interested in hearing  who was planning on using an alternate engine? Or does someone want  to chart hours of operation with an alternate engine?  Tim's call  for hours of operation in RV-10's came through loud and clear but other  requests might have been lost.  I'm planning on using an Eggenfellner  intercooled turbo.

 Paul Hahn

 #40203 - inventoried our finishing kit  yesterday

    [quote][b]

millstees(at)ameritech.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Paul:

  

 I am building a -10, and planning the same engine  package.  Are you in on the Dec shipping?  Please give me a call (at)  630-308-7476 if you would like to compare notes 

Steve Mills N750SM (reserved)

RV-10 40486 Slow-build   Eggenfellner E-6T

Naperville, Illinois

Finishing kit

Do Not  Archive

   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  eagerlee

Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:34 AM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Is there a call for  planned alternate engine use?

 

 Did somebody say they were interested in hearing  who was planning on using an alternate engine? Or does someone want  to chart hours of operation with an alternate engine?  Tim's call  for hours of operation in RV-10's came through loud and clear but other  requests might have been lost.  I'm planning on using an Eggenfellner  intercooled turbo.

 Paul Hahn

 #40203 - inventoried our finishing kit  yesterday

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

I will gladly track all forms of alternative powerplants flying.  The incident/accident rate and performance should be of value to everyone.  

   

John Cox  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of eagerlee

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:34 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

     

Did somebody say they were interested in hearing who was planning on using an alternate engine? Or does someone want to chart hours of operation with an alternate engine?  Tim's call for hours of operation in RV-10's came through loud and clear but other requests might have been lost.  I'm planning on using an Eggenfellner intercooled turbo.  

    

Paul Hahn  

    

#40203 - inventoried our finishing kit yesterday  

  [quote]   [b]

ddddsp1(at)juno.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10? 

Dean 



_____________________________________________________________

Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!

   [quote][b]

speckter(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

In my 30 years involved in the homebuilding experience most folks choose and alternate engine based on claims made by the engine seller.  Many times there is no scientific way to verify those claims, or the engine seller convinces the buyer to be his test bed for a reduced cost of the engine.  I have yet to see an installation where the claims were met or exceeded.  Whether that be for cost, fuel economy, ease of overhaul, or an endless list of other claims that would make an alternate engine superior to a Lycosaurus.  

   

I too would love to see an economical choice besides the old Lycosaurus, but an auto engine, even if converted, is a very different beast than an aircraft engine.  There is IMHO not enough volume to pay for the extensive research required to bring an alternative engine to market with scientific testing required to verify its suitability for flight.  Even Mooney with all it’s $$$ did not have a successful Porsche conversion.  Yes it met some goals but not all and to meet the rest of the goals would cost even more $$, pushing it out of the market.  So that leaves us the homebuilder to be the test bed for the engine manufacturer.  As long as the homebuilder fully understands all that that entails, great.  My beef is that in all the cases over the years that I have witnessed an alternative engine install, the builder learned what he didn’t know about the process of testing a conversion, way to far into the process for him to change his mind.  He would have had to take a huge financial hit.  Some folks took the hit, some went on and ended up spending way more than they would have on a Lyc installation.  

   

An old time EAA member told me that if you are thinking of buying anything for your aircraft, including an engine, go to Oshkosh and see if there are at least 10 of that item there and at least 8 of the folks are happy with it, if so go buy it.  If you buy before that time just to get the newest and latest, you are the test subject.  Fully understand that concept of you doing the testing for the manufacturer.  It will delay your first flight, it will cost an unknown quantity of $ because the manufacturer does not yet know what breaks and how soon.  Just because it runs does not make it durable.  Know what you are getting yourself into when you agree to be a pioneer.  Thank goodness for pioneers.  We need pioneers.  I am sure the first folks to cross this great land had no idea how much the trip would cost.  Just fully understand what you are signing up for.  It is one of those dark little secrets that so many of our fellow builders have been burned trying to push the envelope.  

   

I think it is great if you want to be the pioneer, just make the choice to be one, a fully informed choice.  

   

Gary  

Tech Councilor, Flight Advisor, presently building my 4th aircraft.  Yes, I am an old fart.  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:41 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

   

Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?  

Dean  



 

 _____________________________________________________________

 Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4

       [quote][b]

msausen

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 559
Location: Appleton, WI USA

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

I did some serious looking at the Egg engine back in the end of 2005 when he first offered it for the -10.  The short version of much research is it offered long term fuel compatibility and lower fuel expenses at the cost of performance and integration issues along with increased complexity.  Also there is potential savings for upfront costs however the Lycoming will hold its value considerably more.  You can also expect Jan to be at least a year late with his delivery from whatever he initially promises.  

   

Michael  

     

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:41 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

   

Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?  

Dean  



 

 _____________________________________________________________

 Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4

      [quote][b]

dlm46007(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Amen.

  

  

All   alternative engine installations require the same amount of  engineering analysis and design as certified ones. The builder needs to have the  engineering expertise (in which case he pays with his time) or purchase the  expertise ( cash) or wing it (risk). If a builder cannot afford a Lycosauus then he  can't afford to do an alternate engine properly. I recall when I was purchasing  the tail kit that Mistral was offering me a $5000 discount on the engine to  bring an flying 10 to OSH the next year. We just laughed, knowing the real  costs. During my building partner's visit to Switzerland he visited the factory;  the engineers there indicated that they could not fly for more than 30 minutes  due to heat problems; yet the peddlers at  OSH were trying to sell me an engine for me to 'engineer" into the 10.  Incidentally they are still trying to certify this engine in a long term project  with Embry Riddle. With alternative engines as it is with all of aviation, "If  you can not afford to do it right , you can not afford to do it".



   From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of  gary

Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:24 PM

To:  rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Is there a call for  planned alternate engine use?

 

  

In my 30 years involved  in the homebuilding experience most folks choose and alternate engine based on  claims made by the engine seller.  Many times there is no scientific way to  verify those claims, or the engine seller convinces the buyer to be his test bed  for a reduced cost of the engine.  I have yet to see an installation where  the claims were met or exceeded.  Whether that be for cost, fuel economy,  ease of overhaul, or an endless list of other claims that would make an  alternate engine superior to a Lycosaurus. 

  

I too would love to see  an economical choice besides the old Lycosaurus, but an auto engine, even if  converted, is a very different beast than an aircraft engine.  There is  IMHO not enough volume to pay for the extensive research required to bring an  alternative engine to market with scientific testing required to verify its  suitability for flight.  Even Mooney with all it’s $$$ did not have a  successful Porsche conversion.  Yes it met some goals but not all and to  meet the rest of the goals would cost even more $$, pushing it out of the  market.  So that leaves us the homebuilder to be the test bed for the  engine manufacturer.  As long as the homebuilder fully understands all that  that entails, great.  My beef is that in all the cases over the years that  I have witnessed an alternative engine install, the builder learned what he  didn’t know about the process of testing a conversion, way to far into the  process for him to change his mind.  He would have had to take a huge  financial hit.  Some folks took the hit, some went on and ended up spending  way more than they would have on a Lyc  installation. 

  

An old time EAA member  told me that if you are thinking of buying anything for your aircraft, including  an engine, go to Oshkosh and see if there are at least 10 of  that item there and at least 8 of the folks are happy with it, if so go buy  it.  If you buy before that time just to get the newest and latest, you are  the test subject.  Fully understand that concept of you doing the testing  for the manufacturer.  It will delay your first flight, it will cost an  unknown quantity of $ because the manufacturer does not yet know what breaks and  how soon.  Just because it runs does not make it durable.  Know what  you are getting yourself into when you agree to be a pioneer.  Thank  goodness for pioneers.  We need pioneers.  I am sure the first folks  to cross this great land had no idea how much the trip would cost.  Just  fully understand what you are signing up for.  It is one of those dark  little secrets that so many of our fellow builders have been burned trying to  push the envelope. 

  

I think it is great if  you want to be the pioneer, just make the choice to be one, a fully informed  choice. 

  

Gary 

Tech Councilor, Flight  Advisor, presently building my 4th aircraft.  Yes, I am an old  fart. 

     

 

From:  owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:41  PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Is there a call for  planned alternate engine use?

 

  

Can someone  update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the  RV10? 

Dean 

_____________________________________________________________

Turn  up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click  now! 	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4

 	  Quote: 	
		  	
5    [quote][b]

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

ddddsp1(at)juno.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a

 Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?



 Dean




	


Hi Dean,

    A lot of what may be considered advantages are subjective to the

opinion of the builder, and some can be duplicated on the Lyc.



In my opinion only, here are some items that I perceive to be advantages

(others may believe some of these are disadvantages or may not agree

with me at all) for installing an Eggenfeller Subaru in my Sportsman:



- Electronic ignition, computer controlled timing and "knock" sensing

- Fuel injection

- Water cooled (no shock cooling)

- Significantly reduced vibration (smoother feeling engine)

- Single lever engine control (versus separate mixture and throttle)

    * Note there is still a separate control for prop pitch for both engines

    * No primer required for the Subaru

    * No carb heat required for the Subaru

- Reduced chance of fuel vapor lock due to the full flow return fuel system

- Little to no oil consumption (also, no "dirty belly" after flight)

- Quieter

- Ability to burn autofuel (and potentially autofuel containing ethanol

if the airframe fuel system is designed and implemented properly)

- Reduced chance of CO in cockpit (heater works from the water cooling,

not associated with the exhaust system, which also makes it safer and

more effective in my opinion)

- In theory, significantly cheaper overhaul (as far as I know none have

had to be overhauled yet that I have read about anyways, and I am unsure

of the cost or frequency of overhauling the prop gear reduction unit)

- From talking to my insurance company, no difference in the cost of the

policy whether I install a Lyc or Eggenfellner Subaru (however, there is

an increased cost if I "roll my own" engine package)

- From the few Glastars with Egg Subaru engines I have seen sold over

the past few years, there does not seem to be any difference in resale

cost as compared to those with a Lyc installed (However, I do not know

if there would be less people interested in buying it, which might imply

that it may take longer to sell.  I haven't seen very many for sale, so

few data points to go by.  This also doesn't say anything about the RV10

market).

* Disclaimer - I have been monitoring the Eggenfellner mailing list for

about 5 years, and about a month ago placed my order for an H-6 package

for my Sportsman.  In the past there have been some cooling issues and

delayed deliveries, but recently these concerns have been addressed to

my comfort level.  The cooling seems to be fixed with the proper cowl

and vent design, and the deliveries seem to be closer to being on-time. 

I'll let you know in about 6 months when mine is scheduled to arrive...  



    There are disadvantages as well, but there has been so much chatter

about it on this list already that I will just refer you to the

archives...  



    Bottom line, for me it is just a personal preference.  There are

valid opinions on both sides of this topic.



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

bob.kaufmann(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

I have to agree that it is both expensive and time consuming to do an alternative engine.  There is a lot in the engineering and so far I have a huge group of mistakes, but it is fun.  If I was going to sell my airplane some day I’d put a Lyco in it but since I’m building it for me I’ll eat the time and energy to do an alternative.  I am going with a 20B and have the mount, headers, muffler system, and intake designed.  I am missing only the shoebox part of the intake manifold but will fiberglass that up this weekend.  I have build new pulleys for the alternator, water pump and engine, and a new alternator bracket, moving it to the right side of the aircraft.  I am also wiring and the bundles are getting more organized with the wiring.  

   

Bob k  

Looking to be about 91 % done.  :>))   

       

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McNeill

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:40 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

  

   

Amen.  

   

All  alternative engine installations require the same amount of engineering analysis and design as certified ones. The builder needs to have the engineering expertise (in which case he pays with his time) or purchase the expertise ( cash) or wing it (risk). If a builder cannot afford a Lycosauus then he can't afford to do an alternate engine properly. I recall when I was purchasing the tail kit that Mistral was offering me a $5000 discount on the engine to bring an flying 10 to OSH the next year. We just laughed, knowing the real costs. During my building partner's visit to Switzerland he visited the factory; the engineers there indicated that they could not fly for more than 30 minutes due to heat problems; yet the peddlers at OSH were trying to sell me an engine for me to 'engineer" into the 10. Incidentally they are still trying to certify this engine in a long term project with Embry Riddle. With alternative engines as it is with all of aviation, "If you can not afford to do it right , you can not afford to do it".  

       

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gary

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:24 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

In my 30 years involved in the homebuilding experience most folks choose and alternate engine based on claims made by the engine seller.  Many times there is no scientific way to verify those claims, or the engine seller convinces the buyer to be his test bed for a reduced cost of the engine.  I have yet to see an installation where the claims were met or exceeded.  Whether that be for cost, fuel economy, ease of overhaul, or an endless list of other claims that would make an alternate engine superior to a Lycosaurus.  

   

I too would love to see an economical choice besides the old Lycosaurus, but an auto engine, even if converted, is a very different beast than an aircraft engine.  There is IMHO not enough volume to pay for the extensive research required to bring an alternative engine to market with scientific testing required to verify its suitability for flight.  Even Mooney with all it’s $$$ did not have a successful Porsche conversion.  Yes it met some goals but not all and to meet the rest of the goals would cost even more $$, pushing it out of the market.  So that leaves us the homebuilder to be the test bed for the engine manufacturer.  As long as the homebuilder fully understands all that that entails, great.  My beef is that in all the cases over the years that I have witnessed an alternative engine install, the builder learned what he didn’t know about the process of testing a conversion, way to far into the process for him to change his mind.  He would have had to take a huge financial hit.  Some folks took the hit, some went on and ended up spending way more than they would have on a Lyc installation.  

   

An old time EAA member told me that if you are thinking of buying anything for your aircraft, including an engine, go to Oshkosh and see if there are at least 10 of that item there and at least 8 of the folks are happy with it, if so go buy it.  If you buy before that time just to get the newest and latest, you are the test subject.  Fully understand that concept of you doing the testing for the manufacturer.  It will delay your first flight, it will cost an unknown quantity of $ because the manufacturer does not yet know what breaks and how soon.  Just because it runs does not make it durable.  Know what you are getting yourself into when you agree to be a pioneer.  Thank goodness for pioneers.  We need pioneers.  I am sure the first folks to cross this great land had no idea how much the trip would cost.  Just fully understand what you are signing up for.  It is one of those dark little secrets that so many of our fellow builders have been burned trying to push the envelope.  

   

I think it is great if you want to be the pioneer, just make the choice to be one, a fully informed choice.  

   

Gary  

Tech Councilor, Flight Advisor, presently building my 4th aircraft.  Yes, I am an old fart.  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:41 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

   

Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?  

Dean  



 

 _____________________________________________________________

 Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com   href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
5

       [quote][b]

kearney(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Hi Dean  

   

In my opinion, there is no compelling set of *facts* that will convince all engine buyers to go one way or another. To me the issue is one of risk management and a) what risks am I willing to take on and b) how can I mitigate these risks.  Aviation is a risky pastime, so we need to do what we can to mitigate the risks.  

   

I have about 1,100 hours on a PA28/180C that has an O-360 engine that was overhauled in 1979. Since I have owned the a/c, I have replaced all the jugs (one twice).  The last jug I replaced had 400 hours on it when it developed an exhaust port crack. I have had scored cylinders and broken rings. I fly the engine not too hard and usually with a fairly consistent hand on the throttle. In the past, I have spent a lot of time over very inhospitable country (bush) in northern Alberta. My visceral fear is that I will have a catastrophic failure.   

   

Over the years I have known two pilots who have had major failures on an O-360. Today I was speaking with a friend (who has many more hours than I) about this. He mentioned that he has had 3 engine failures over the years. The reason I mention these is just to put my views in context. I do not consider Lyc or Cont engines to be God’s gift to aviation – they just happen to be the big players. My view is that the apparent reliability of these engines is because of the repetitive inspections that cause failing parts to be replaced before a failure occurs. For example, the A&P at the local flying club says they have a history or replacing jugs on IO540s.   

   

So in my view, traditional aircraft engines are risky with the risk being mitigated (notice I did not say eliminated) through a repetitive inspection process. Private owners do annuals and don’t fly that much. Commercial ops have more frequent inspections because they fly more. The result is likely the same or similar.  

   

So why did I decide on an *alternative* engine? I admit some of the decision is based on faith and a willingness to accept a different type of risk. The key reasons for me are:  

     a      desire to have what I believe is a better engineered engine. A Subaru engine      that represents year 2000 engineering principles is a better engine that a state of the      art 1940s engine. Better tolerances etc. This link to Ross Farnham’s      website is fairly eloquent on this matter. http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html      . My opinion is that the engine will not be a risky as a Lyc or Cont      engine.  
Since      Oshkosh      1999 when I saw the Continental diesel mock-up that was to be a      replacement for engines similar to my O-360, I have wanted to have an a/c      engine that represent the latest technology in terms of electronics, ignition,      etc. Again, the Subaru fits this requirement. Even mainstream a/c are now      going this route. The Diamond Twinstar has electronic igntition.  
There      are products in the market that help mitigate the unique risks of a modern      engine. Specifically, I plan to use the Vertical Power VP200 system to      manage my electrical system. The electrical design for VP200 has been      vetted by Jan. Now I have a way to mitigate the electrical risks, a way      designed by people far smarter than I  
The      Subaru will provide very similar performance to the IO540. Perhaps the non      turbo version was not as fast as the IO540, but then again that may be      because it was flying on a fairly dirty airframe. With a turbo, it will      certainly perform better at altitude.  
I      live in a cold environment (it is -25c today). I like the idea of a water      cooled engine and easier starts, no pre-heating and water based heating      system.   
I      like the idea of a well balanced engine that is not vibrating the hell out      of avionics and passengers.   
I      especially like the idea of no more shock cooling, no more burning oil      like a tramp steamer and a quieter engine.   

   

In my opinion, the engine portion of the firewall forward package is much safer than a traditional a/c engine.  

   

Where are the big risks? In my opinion the biggest risk is the PSRU that gears down the crank RPM to a something appropriate for the prop. I know many people have mentioned that they have had problems with earlier versions. I couple of people have kindly shared their experiences on a private basis – which I truly appreciate. So based on what I have learned to date, this seems to be the big risk I need to manage. Worst case, I need to monitor the health of the PSRU and if problems occur, swap it out. For the difference in cost of the engine, I could afford to have a spare PSRU or 3 sitting on shelf in case it was needed.  

   

The next biggest risk is electrical failure. As I mentioned above, I plan to use a solid state system to control / monitor my a/c electrical system and I plan to have a redundant battery system.   

   

Either way, things can hit the fan and then it will be time to do a dead stick landing. The only way to mange this risk is to know your a/c and stay current. Having a high speed Rosary might help as well.   

   

Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone that my choice is the right one for anyone but me. As John Cox and the oracle it the Indiana Jones ride at Disney says: “Choose Wisely”. Unfortunately, no one knows what the wise choice is until after the fact.   

   

I reserve the right to be 100% wrong in my choice and intolerably smug if I am right.  

   

Cheers  

   

Les Kearney  

#40643 – Still singing the section 29 blues  

C-GCWZ Reserved  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

 Sent: November-28-07 1:41 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

   

Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?  

Dean  



 

 _____________________________________________________________

 Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  	
4

       [quote][b]

indigoonlatigo(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

There are a few things I would like to add to this and I might say that I have been thinking about this issue a lot. 

  

 I have heard all the stories about the certified engines and the need for inspections and and the need for replacing parts. I don't spend much time at community airports because I am really a glider pilot who flies off a private field. The few times I am at those larger airports( to get my transponder certified) I have seen aircraft owners at the repair shops coming by to check on there aircraft as it is getting checked or repaired. Some of these owners have some bucks and they look like they are sweating it. I spoke to one Malibu owner and he looked and spoke about the idea that he was going to have to start thinking about the ownership thing really long and hard. I thought to myself about this and had come to a conclusion that I really will not be enjoying this if that guy becomes me. Here in Southern California I think the hourly rate is about $110-$120 and hour. I notice, the repair guys sure talk a lot to each other. No way to set up a flexible spending account for the airplane, I'm self employed. 

  

 This is not to say one engine is going to be more trouble free than the other, each system as a hole has its week links, recognizing them and evaluating them is the difficult part.

  

 One more thing to perhaps consider. My power flying will be taking me routinely over high terrain, 5-6K with many areas more like 8-9K and occationally higher still. Being the cross country glider pilot that I am, I will be flying my RV10 the same way I fly my sailplane, monitoring my glide ability to my next landable spot(I already have so many of them in my database.)With that said, the higher the safer. What a shock it will be going from a glide of 7 NM per thousand feet to say(7NM devided by 5) and don't forget setting up for landing, EEEHHG!

  

 One more thing to consider. THERMAL activity and what we call the boundary layer. If you don't want to fly high or can't during the summer months, at least here on the west coast, you will be restricted to flying early mornings or late afternoon or evenings, otherwise expect a rough ride on those really good soaring days and trust me, they happen more often than you think. I think the passengers would like the higher ride even it they have to wear a nasal canula.

  

 Thinking very hard and looking for the quite in all the noise. Basically, no answer yet decided.

  

 JOhn G. 409

  	  Quote: 	
		    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:14:56 -0700

From: kearney(at)shaw.ca

Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com



   .ExternalClass .EC_shape {;}       .ExternalClass EC_p.MsoNormal, .ExternalClass EC_li.MsoNormal, .ExternalClass EC_div.MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass EC_span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass EC_span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass p {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass pre {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Courier New';} .ExternalClass EC_span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} (at)page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;} .ExternalClass EC_div.Section1 {page:Section1;} .ExternalClass ol {margin-bottom:0cm;} .ExternalClass ul {margin-bottom:0cm;}     

Hi Dean 

  

In my opinion, there is no compelling set of *facts* that will convince all engine buyers to go one way or another. To me the issue is one of risk management and a) what risks am I willing to take on and b) how can I mitigate these risks.  Aviation is a risky pastime, so we need to do what we can to mitigate the risks. 

  

I have about 1,100 hours on a PA28/180C that has an O-360 engine that was overhauled in 1979. Since I have owned the a/c, I have replaced all the jugs (one twice).  The last jug I replaced had 400 hours on it when it developed an exhaust port crack. I have had scored cylinders and broken rings. I fly the engine not too hard and usually with a fairly consistent hand on the throttle. In the past, I have spent a lot of time over very inhospitable country (bush) in northern Alberta. My visceral fear is that I will have a catastrophic failure.  

  

Over the years I have known two pilots who have had major failures on an O-360. Today I was speaking with a friend (who has many more hours than I) about this. He mentioned that he has had 3 engine failures over the years. The reason I mention these is just to put my views in context. I do not consider Lyc or Cont engines to be God’s gift to aviation – they just happen to be the big players. My view is that the apparent reliability of these engines is because of the repetitive inspections that cause failing parts to be replaced before a failure occurs. For example, the A&P at the local flying club says they have a history or replacing jugs on IO540s.  

  

So in my view, traditional aircraft engines are risky with the risk being mitigated (notice I did not say eliminated) through a repetitive inspection process. Private owners do annuals and don’t fly that much. Commercial ops have more frequent inspections because they fly more. The result is likely the same or similar. 

  

So why did I decide on an *alternative* engine? I admit some of the decision is based on faith and a willingness to accept a different type of risk. The key reasons for me are: 

   a desire to have what I believe is a better engineered engine. A Subaru engine that represents year 2000 engineering principles is a better engine that a state of the art 1940s engine. Better tolerances etc. This link to Ross Farnham’s website is fairly eloquent on this matter. http://www.sdsefi.com/air7.html . My opinion is that the engine will not be a risky as a Lyc or Cont engine. 
Since Oshkosh 1999 when I saw the Continental diesel mock-up that was to be a replacement for engines similar to my O-360, I have wanted to have an a/c engine that represent the latest technology in terms of electronics, ignition, etc. Again, the Subaru fits this requirement. Even mainstream a/c are now going this route. The Diamond Twinstar has electronic igntition. 
There are products in the market that help mitigate the unique risks of a modern engine. Specifically, I plan to use the Vertical Power VP200 system to manage my electrical system. The electrical design for VP200 has been vetted by Jan. Now I have a way to mitigate the electrical risks, a way designed by people far smarter than I 
The Subaru will provide very similar performance to the IO540. Perhaps the non turbo version was not as fast as the IO540, but then again that may be because it was flying on a fairly dirty airframe. With a turbo, it will certainly perform better at altitude. 
I live in a cold environment (it is -25c today). I like the idea of a water cooled engine and easier starts, no pre-heating and water based heating system.  
I like the idea of a well balanced engine that is not vibrating the hell out of avionics and passengers.  
I especially like the idea of no more shock cooling, no more burning oil like a tramp steamer and a quieter engine. 

  

In my opinion, the engine portion of the firewall forward package is much safer than a traditional a/c engine. 

  

Where are the big risks? In my opinion the biggest risk is the PSRU that gears down the crank RPM to a something appropriate for the prop. I know many people have mentioned that they have had problems with earlier versions. I couple of people have kindly shared their experiences on a private basis – which I truly appreciate. So based on what I have learned to date, this seems to be the big risk I need to manage. Worst case, I need to monitor the health of the PSRU and if problems occur, swap it out. For the difference in cost of the engine, I could afford to have a spare PSRU or 3 sitting on shelf in case it was needed. 

  

The next biggest risk is electrical failure. As I mentioned above, I plan to use a solid state system to control / monitor my a/c electrical system and I plan to have a redundant battery system.  

  

Either way, things can hit the fan and then it will be time to do a dead stick landing. The only way to mange this risk is to know your a/c and stay current. Having a high speed Rosary might help as well.  

  

Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone that my choice is the right one for anyone but me. As John Cox and the oracle it the Indiana Jones ride at Disney says: “Choose Wisely”. Unfortunately, no one knows what the wise choice is until after the fact.  

  

I reserve the right to be 100% wrong in my choice and intolerably smug if I am right. 

  

Cheers 

  

Les Kearney 

#40643 – Still singing the section 29 blues 

C-GCWZ Reserved 

     

 

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

Sent: November-28-07 1:41 PM

To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

 

  Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?

 Dean

 

_____________________________________________________________

Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now! 	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5

 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	
  [quote][b]

Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

I wanted to comment on your statement about fuel compatibility and lower fuel expenses on the Egg engine.  He is a paragraph I sent to another RV-10 builder that was interested in first hand knowledge of the Egg engine.  I had 17 hours on my RV-9A/Egg engine when I had to do a forced landing which resulted in the total destruction of the plane.  I didn’t have it in me to go back and invest another 1,000 hours to get it flying again, so I built and now fly my RV-10 with the Lycoming IO-540.  

   

“One other thing I forgot to mention was Fuel Flow.  My friend Nathan, with the RV-9A (2.5 liter non-turbo) is now cruising at 140 – 145 Knots with the third generation gear box.  We flew side by side from Oshkosh 2007 straight home to Gardner, Kansas (K34), a 424 nm trip.  The trip took 3 hours and I burned 28 Gals on my IO-540 RV-10 with three guys and a gross weight of 2760 lbs while the RV-9A Subaru burned 25 Gals and only had the pilot and a gross weight of 1650.  You can see from this that the Subaru is no more efficient then a Lycoming and with the RV-10 being over 1000 lbs heavier, this is almost impossible to improve on.  I love to tell people this story which really shows how efficient the RV-10 with the IO-540 (260 HP) can be when you run on the Lean side of Peak.”  

   

I don’t agree with your other comment about lower fuel expense because the RV-10 package from Jan is a Turbo which is requiring you run 100 LL, but then on top of that fuel cost you also have to run the fuel additive to scavenge the lead.  This makes it more expensive to run than an IO-540.  

   

   

     

Thank You

 Ray Doerr

 N519RV (40250) 340 hours.  

        

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:29 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

   

   I did some serious looking at the Egg engine back in the end of 2005 when he first offered it for the -10.  The short version of much research is it offered long term fuel compatibility and lower fuel expenses at the cost of performance and integration issues along with increased complexity.  Also there is potential savings for upfront costs however the Lycoming will hold its value considerably more.  You can also expect Jan to be at least a year late with his delivery from whatever he initially promises.  

   

Michael  

     

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ddddsp1(at)juno.com

 Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:41 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?  

  

   

Can someone update me on the ADVANTAGES of an Eggenfeller engine vs a Lycoming O-540 for the RV10?  

Dean  



 

 _____________________________________________________________

 Turn up the heat with a beautiful new home sauna. Click now!   	  Quote: 	
		     http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
 	  Quote: 	
		   	
 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List 	
 	  Quote: 	
		    	
 	  Quote: 	
		    	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		   	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/contribution 	
8

       [quote][b]

Jon Reining

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 37

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

I feel like every piece of aviation p0rn that I get is predicting the demise of 100LL.  Environmentalists are taking on the fact that it contains lead.  Refiners are reducing or shutting down production. Cost keeps climbing ($5.51 at Oakland, CA).  It just doesn't seem like a rosy picture.



My reasoning is that small airplanes are a very small minority to cars.  Its going to take a whole lot longer for all the cars out there to be gas free than it is for 100LL to become extinct.  Therefore, if we can use the same fuel as cars we'll be in business a whole lot longer.



Given that, I would love to make provisions for an IO-540 that can also accept autogas, as well as autogas containing ethanol.  Ideal would be to accept both autogas and 100LL and switching back and forth.  



Has anybody done any research on this?  Is anybody else going this route?  Any advice to be had?  



Jon Reining #40514 (along with building partner dad, Bill)

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I don’t agree with your other comment about lower fuel expense because

 the RV-10 package from Jan is a Turbo which is requiring you run 100

 LL, but then on top of that fuel cost you also have to run the fuel

 additive to scavenge the lead. This makes it more expensive to run

 than an IO-540.




	


Hi Ray,

Just a quick "back of the napkin" figuring (mostly because I am bored at

the moment...  ):



The oil used in the Subaru is less expensive (Valvoline DuraBlend 5w30,

about $1-$2 per quart), and is recommended to be changed out every 100

hours (twice that of the Lyc). Ignoring any additional oil consumption

that the Lyc may burn in this time, and presuming both engines use 6

quarts of oil, in 100 hours of flying you save about $45 in oil.



The Subaru recommended oil filter costs about $9 (K&N Filter: HP-1004)

and the Champion oil filter for the Lyc costs about $19. In 100 hours of

flying, you save $29.



Between the oil and the filter, the Subaru saves you about $74 for every

100 hours of flying.



The fuel additive (Decalin) is $28 per 32 ounces, used at 1/2 ounce per

10 gallons of 100LL, so you can treat 640 gallons of fuel with one

bottle. Given your example of 28 gals used in 3 hours, you were using

9.3 gals per hour, and over 100 hours that is 930 gallons of fuel. That

would take about 1.5 bottles of Decalin fuel additive, costing $42.



It is not a huge difference, but you would still save $32 with the

Subaru as compared to the Lyc IO-540 over the 100 hours.



-Dj

-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

sam(at)fr8dog.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

This is a good link for prospective.

 Sam

 #40157, Flying

 

 http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/55.jsp

 

 Jon Reining wrote: [quote]    	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Jon Reining" <jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com> (jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com)



I feel like every piece of aviation p0rn that I get is predicting the demise of 100LL.  Environmentalists are taking on the fact that it contains lead.  Refiners are reducing or shutting down production. Cost keeps climbing ($5.51 at Oakland, CA).  It just doesn't seem like a rosy picture.



My reasoning is that small airplanes are a very small minority to cars.  Its going to take a whole lot longer for all the cars out there to be gas free than it is for 100LL to become extinct.  Therefore, if we can use the same fuel as cars we'll be in business a whole lot longer.



Given that, I would love to make provisions for an IO-540 that can also accept autogas, as well as autogas containing ethanol.  Ideal would be to accept both autogas and 100LL and switching back and forth.  



Has anybody done any research on this?  Is anybody else going this route?  Any advice to be had?  



Jon Reining #40514 (along with building partner dad, Bill)





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149370#149370





 



















  	
 [b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Jon,



I'm not a huge proponent of this right now, for various reasons,

but, I did ask similar questions of Lyc and others before

I bought my engine.  The O-540 is able to go both ways right

now, but the IO-540 may be converted to an O-540 later if

necessary, or perhaps other options that may make it viable.

That's one of the reasons I stuck with standard pistons and

not high compression pistons, in hopes that if 100LL

disappeared suddenly, I could perhaps at least have a

start on a flyable system with some simple changes.  My gut,

which isn't good for much on this (although it is kind

of big), tells me that if 100LL died tomorrow, by throttling

back a bit we could still fly, and by doing a few minor

mods and changing our altitude expectations a bit among

other things, we'd probably not be grounded.  I don't want

to see that happen, but I think what it will take for the

big change to occur is the crisis to happen....so I'm glad

it's taking it's time.



Personally, my most recent thoughts on "flying after

$10/gallon fuel" have now fallen back to the fact that

if we start getting fuel costs over $8-10, the only

realistic way to even be IN the air will be via motorglider.

So I'm more inclined to think that our main concern is

less the loss of 100LL than it is being priced right

out of the ability to even buy fuel reasonably.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Jon Reining wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <jonathan.w.reining(at)wellsfargo.com>

 

 I feel like every piece of aviation p0rn that I get is predicting the

 demise of 100LL.  Environmentalists are taking on the fact that it

 contains lead.  Refiners are reducing or shutting down production.

 Cost keeps climbing ($5.51 at Oakland, CA).  It just doesn't seem

 like a rosy picture.

 

 My reasoning is that small airplanes are a very small minority to

 cars.  Its going to take a whole lot longer for all the cars out

 there to be gas free than it is for 100LL to become extinct.

 Therefore, if we can use the same fuel as cars we'll be in business a

 whole lot longer.

 

 Given that, I would love to make provisions for an IO-540 that can

 also accept autogas, as well as autogas containing ethanol.  Ideal

 would be to accept both autogas and 100LL and switching back and

 forth.

 

 Has anybody done any research on this?  Is anybody else going this

 route?  Any advice to be had?

 

 Jon Reining #40514 (along with building partner dad, Bill)

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149370#149370

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

To scribble on the back of the napkin further....

I buy tempest filters for < $14 each from skygeek.com.

Then you can also buy Philips x/c oil for less than

$3/qt at the same time.  Early on, my oil consumption

was a total of 1 case used for my engine, from the

start of the change thru 45-50 hours.  So 12qts

used ever 50 was common for many cases I used...at

most 13 qts. ($35/case)  My fuel burn on x/c trips

averages 10gph, and on local flights ROP it's

about 13-14.5 gph.

Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Dj Merrill wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Doerr, Ray R [NTK] wrote:

> I don’t agree with your other comment about lower fuel expense because

> the RV-10 package from Jan is a Turbo which is requiring you run 100

> LL, but then on top of that fuel cost you also have to run the fuel

> additive to scavenge the lead. This makes it more expensive to run

> than an IO-540.

>

 Hi Ray,

 Just a quick "back of the napkin" figuring (mostly because I am bored at

 the moment...  ):

 The oil used in the Subaru is less expensive (Valvoline DuraBlend 5w30,

 about $1-$2 per quart), and is recommended to be changed out every 100

 hours (twice that of the Lyc). Ignoring any additional oil consumption

 that the Lyc may burn in this time, and presuming both engines use 6

 quarts of oil, in 100 hours of flying you save about $45 in oil.

 The Subaru recommended oil filter costs about $9 (K&N Filter: HP-1004)

 and the Champion oil filter for the Lyc costs about $19. In 100 hours of

 flying, you save $29.

 Between the oil and the filter, the Subaru saves you about $74 for every

 100 hours of flying.

 The fuel additive (Decalin) is $28 per 32 ounces, used at 1/2 ounce per

 10 gallons of 100LL, so you can treat 640 gallons of fuel with one

 bottle. Given your example of 28 gals used in 3 hours, you were using

 9.3 gals per hour, and over 100 hours that is 930 gallons of fuel. That

 would take about 1.5 bottles of Decalin fuel additive, costing $42.

 It is not a huge difference, but you would still save $32 with the

 Subaru as compared to the Lyc IO-540 over the 100 hours.

 -Dj

semb

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 7

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Does anyone have any experience with running alternative fuels, such as 

AGE85 or straight ethanol in an IO-540?



Simon

Jon Reining wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I feel like every piece of aviation p0rn that I get is predicting the demise of 100LL.  Environmentalists are taking on the fact that it contains lead.  Refiners are reducing or shutting down production. Cost keeps climbing ($5.51 at Oakland, CA).  It just doesn't seem like a rosy picture.



 My reasoning is that small airplanes are a very small minority to cars.  Its going to take a whole lot longer for all the cars out there to be gas free than it is for 100LL to become extinct.  Therefore, if we can use the same fuel as cars we'll be in business a whole lot longer.



 Given that, I would love to make provisions for an IO-540 that can also accept autogas, as well as autogas containing ethanol.  Ideal would be to accept both autogas and 100LL and switching back and forth.  



 Has anybody done any research on this?  Is anybody else going this route?  Any advice to be had?  



 Jon Reining #40514 (along with building partner dad, Bill)





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149370#149370

deej(at)deej.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 To scribble on the back of the napkin further....

 I buy tempest filters for < $14 each from skygeek.com.

 Then you can also buy Philips x/c oil for less than

 $3/qt at the same time.  Early on, my oil consumption

 was a total of 1 case used for my engine, from the

 start of the change thru 45-50 hours.  So 12qts

 used ever 50 was common for many cases I used...at

 most 13 qts. ($35/case)  My fuel burn on x/c trips

 averages 10gph, and on local flights ROP it's

 about 13-14.5 gph.



    That's a good price on oil - I'll have to remember skygeek.com,
	


thanks!  I was just looking at Aircraft Spruce and Amazon for typical

pricing. 



So, in 100 hours:



Lyc - $70 for oil, $28 for oil filters, totalling $98.

H-6 - $30 for oil, $9 for an oil filter, totalling $39.



Lyc is about $59 more for oil and filters.



At 10gph, you would burn 1000 gallons of 100LL in 100 hours.  I think

the H-6 is closer to 8.5 - 9 gals per hour, but if we go with the same

10 gph, we would have to use 1.56 bottles of Decalin fuel additive at a

cost of $44.



Overall, the Lyc would be about $15 more expensive than the Subaru

taking into account only the fuel (at the same burn rate), oil, and oil

filters.  If the H-6 burns 9gph, thus 900 gallons over the 100 hours,

you'd save an additional approximate $400 in fuel costs if the 100LL

fuel prices stay around $4 per gallon, more if they increase.



    In the grand scheme of aviation costs, these particular numbers are

close enough that I can't see it having a major influence on a purchase

decision.



-Dj



-- 

Dj Merrill - N1JOV

Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ

http://deej.net/sportsman/



"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an 

airplane."  --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005

chuck(at)chuckdirect.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: Is there a call for planned alternate engine use?

Great response Gary.  Stated absolutely accurately.   You new-to-building-guys read this again, Gary is absolutely  correct.

 Wish you were our Tech Councilor here in Santa Maria,  CA Gary, we could use your wisdom.

 Chuck

 RV9A slow build flying

 RV10 70% done, 70% to go!

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

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

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