Author: mikeje@... Time: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:25 am PDT Link
Here is a site worth checking out: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9 I
visited Ross Farnham's shop and looked over his RV6 project and was
VERY impressed. He makes more sense than nearly anyone else. He put
together a Subaru ej22t with a marcotte redrive unit. He told me he
has built race engines for 20 years, and I think he REALLY knows his
stuff.
The EJ22t motor has a reputaion for being bullet proof. The high
power imprezas at I-club.com use the EJ22t block as a starting point
and some put out over 500 hp (intermittently, of course!) A new block
can be had for 1200 direct from subaru. I plan to follow his lead
with the following changes:
1. SOHC Heads from a late model 2.5 (2000 up). They bolt right
on and flow much better than the stock EJ22t heads. Cobb Tuning
(http://www.cobbtuning.com/) tested the phase II heads and they flow
better than a LS1 vette engine. Translates to lower boost for same
power.
2. Ceramic coat the JE forged pistons and head dome. Reduces
thermal load at high boost.
3. Maybe better valves, but stock valves are very good.
4. Race cam for better flow.
I plan to maintain 225 hp on takeoff and 200 for cruise at ANY
altitude. The EJ22t with replacement forged pistons is that tough!
cheers,
Mike Endersby
Author: robert@... Time: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:50 am PDT Link
Hi Mike,
Sounds like the power levels you want could be served by a stock EJ25
with 5 lbs of boost.
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., mikeje@a... wrote:
> Here is a site worth checking out: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9 I
> visited Ross Farnham's shop and looked over his RV6 project and was
> VERY impressed. He makes more sense than nearly anyone else. He put
> together a Subaru ej22t with a marcotte redrive unit. He told me he
> has built race engines for 20 years, and I think he REALLY knows
his
> stuff.
> The EJ22t motor has a reputaion for being bullet proof. The high
> power imprezas at I-club.com use the EJ22t block as a starting
point
> and some put out over 500 hp (intermittently, of course!) A new
block
> can be had for 1200 direct from subaru. I plan to follow his lead
> with the following changes:
> 1. SOHC Heads from a late model 2.5 (2000 up). They bolt
right
> on and flow much better than the stock EJ22t heads. Cobb Tuning
> (http://www.cobbtuning.com/) tested the phase II heads and they
flow
> better than a LS1 vette engine. Translates to lower boost for same
> power.
>
> 2. Ceramic coat the JE forged pistons and head dome. Reduces
> thermal load at high boost.
> 3. Maybe better valves, but stock valves are very good.
>
> 4. Race cam for better flow.
>
> I plan to maintain 225 hp on takeoff and 200 for cruise at ANY
> altitude. The EJ22t with replacement forged pistons is that tough!
>
> cheers,
>
> Mike Endersby
Author: mikeje@... Time: Tue Aug 28, 2001 10:20 pm PDT Link
Robert,
The problem with the EJ25 is that it is an "open deck" design and
as such is much less stable at higher boost levels. Also, the bottom
end internals are not as tough as the EJ22t. It comes stock with
forged crank and rods, but cast pistons, which should be replaced
with forged for these power levels.
Mike Endersby--- In RV7and7A@y..., robert@p... wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> Sounds like the power levels you want could be served by a stock
EJ25
> with 5 lbs of boost.
> Robert Paisley
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., mikeje@a... wrote:
> > Here is a site worth checking out: http://www.sdsefi.com/air9 I
> > visited Ross Farnham's shop and looked over his RV6 project and
was
> > VERY impressed. He makes more sense than nearly anyone else. He
put
> > together a Subaru ej22t with a marcotte redrive unit. He told me
he
> > has built race engines for 20 years, and I think he REALLY knows
> his
> > stuff.
> > The EJ22t motor has a reputaion for being bullet proof. The
high
> > power imprezas at I-club.com use the EJ22t block as a starting
> point
> > and some put out over 500 hp (intermittently, of course!) A new
> block
> > can be had for 1200 direct from subaru. I plan to follow his lead
> > with the following changes:
> > 1. SOHC Heads from a late model 2.5 (2000 up). They bolt
> right
> > on and flow much better than the stock EJ22t heads. Cobb Tuning
> > (http://www.cobbtuning.com/) tested the phase II heads and they
> flow
> > better than a LS1 vette engine. Translates to lower boost for
same
> > power.
> >
> > 2. Ceramic coat the JE forged pistons and head dome. Reduces
> > thermal load at high boost.
> > 3. Maybe better valves, but stock valves are very good.
> >
> > 4. Race cam for better flow.
> >
> > I plan to maintain 225 hp on takeoff and 200 for cruise at ANY
> > altitude. The EJ22t with replacement forged pistons is that tough!
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Mike Endersby
Author: robert@... Time: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:29 pm PDT Link
Hi Mike,
I'm aware of the two block designs. But we're not talking huge
horsepower. I have not put any boost to a soob to date, so I'm just
speculating at this point. Have you been advised to use the forged
pistons with 225HP or was that for a higher boost motor?
I am interested in achieving the power levels you speak of. I suspect
the EJ25 with minor (possibly no) mods is very capable of this. 5 lbs
of boost is not a high power level.
I have an engine dyno and plan to add a turbo to Jan's kit and test
it thoroughly. But I think it is a big advantage to start with a
complete firewall forward package (such as Jan's) and go from there.
There is too much opportunity (in my mind) to run smack into the
steep part of the learning curve if you start from scratch and piece
together a one off installation (and motor configuration). Not that
it can't be done. But it might be a lot safer (and cheaper) to use
the engineering already done by others.
Just one engineers method to getting to a successful package with the
least headache and cost.
Your comments are certainly welcome,
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., mikeje@a... wrote:
> Robert,
> The problem with the EJ25 is that it is an "open deck" design
and
> as such is much less stable at higher boost levels. Also, the
bottom
> end internals are not as tough as the EJ22t. It comes stock with
> forged crank and rods, but cast pistons, which should be replaced
> with forged for these power levels.
>
> > > Mike Endersby
Author: mikeje@... Time: Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:09 am PDT Link
Robert:
Ross advised me to use forged pistons for the 225 power level. It
gives an extra margin of reliability to the setup. He is using forged
pistons and plans to cruise at 165 hp. If you read through his
discourse on the ej22 settup he put together along with his comments
on the "turbo Tom" kitplanes article what he says makes sense.
(http://www.sdsefi.com/air36.htm)
I agree that prior development is a great advantage. Bugs can get
worked out and design flaws corrected before we do our installation.
That is why I'm going to follow Ross's lead. He will be flying long
before I will, and I can benefit from his experience. Further, he has
sold several thousand? ( if I heard him right ) of his scratch
designed fuel injection computer system and claims to have NEVER had
a computer failure. I plan to use his fuel computer sytem. Not to
take away from the work of others, but I think he may produce the
best suburu conversion yet.
I agree a firewall forward package would be quicker and probably
quite reliable. I just can't resist the lure of the "best and the
most". Ross told me he had about 300 hours in the engine installation
so far, but he is starting from scratch. I probably will have similar
time invested even with using his design basis.
Just one example and why I have such high confidence: I asked
him about the 4" pulley he made for the rebuilt toyota alternator.
Why not buy an underdrive pulley for the crank? He said it was a bad
idea to mess with the damper pulley because it had been designed to
deal with the engine's natural resonate frequencies. Makes sense.
I looked at the supercharger installation on the Eggenfellner web
site. Where is the intercooler? Turbo Tom already found out that
doesn't work, except for very low boost levels. And why boost a block
and heads not designed for turbo operation from the ground up. In
there defense the EJ22t (Legacy 90-94) was not intercooled. At
sustained high power levels intercooling is a must. It reduces
thermal and mechanical stresses on the engine.
my 2 cents,
Mike Endersby chaffing to start the 7
In RV7and7A@y..., robert@p... wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> I'm aware of the two block designs. But we're not talking huge
> horsepower. I have not put any boost to a soob to date, so I'm just
> speculating at this point. Have you been advised to use the forged
> pistons with 225HP or was that for a higher boost motor?
>
> I am interested in achieving the power levels you speak of. I
suspect
> the EJ25 with minor (possibly no) mods is very capable of this. 5
lbs
> of boost is not a high power level.
>
> I have an engine dyno and plan to add a turbo to Jan's kit and test
> it thoroughly. But I think it is a big advantage to start with a
> complete firewall forward package (such as Jan's) and go from there.
> There is too much opportunity (in my mind) to run smack into the
> steep part of the learning curve if you start from scratch and
piece
> together a one off installation (and motor configuration). Not that
> it can't be done. But it might be a lot safer (and cheaper) to use
> the engineering already done by others.
>
> Just one engineers method to getting to a successful package with
the
> least headache and cost.
>
> Your comments are certainly welcome,
> Robert Paisley
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., mikeje@a... wrote:
> > Robert,
> > The problem with the EJ25 is that it is an "open deck" design
> and
> > as such is much less stable at higher boost levels. Also, the
> bottom
> > end internals are not as tough as the EJ22t. It comes stock with
> > forged crank and rods, but cast pistons, which should be replaced
> > with forged for these power levels.
> >
> > > > Mike Endersby
Author: "David Domeier" <david010@...> Time: Thu Aug 30, 2001 7:20 am PDT Link
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
John,
re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
justify it."
There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about -
but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
engine, especially on that first flight.
It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and go fly
with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this? Am I
a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
possible.
Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversion is
to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt Rutan
said about the same thing with the EZ's. It is somewhat indicative of
the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong and
the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as possible
all the time.
dd
Author: jandkstevenson@... Time: Thu Aug 30, 2001 3:20 pm PDT Link
It does seem strange that all the so called experts are
pushing something that has not been proven
Van says to go with the lyc. So do I.
Look at the records not many auto engines work in an
aircraft. The only one at at this time that has a chance
is the mazda. The one item in favor of the auto engine
is the cost of life or should I say fuel. Be serious the
auto engine has not worked in an airplane
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
> John,
>
> re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
> serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
> else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
> justify it."
>
> There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
> conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about -
> but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
>
> While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
> my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
> engine, especially on that first flight.
>
> It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
> engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and go fly
> with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this? Am I
> a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
> conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
> possible.
>
> Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversion is
> to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt Rutan
> said about the same thing with the EZ's. It is somewhat indicative of
> the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
> recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong and
> the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as possible
> all the time.
>
> dd
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "Jim Carter" <jim@...> Time: Thu Aug 30, 2001 4:22 pm PDT Link
I find it very interesting that some people have such strong opinions and are delighted to condemn and label anyone who doesn’t share the same. For instance “ Van says to go witha Lyc. So do I.” This is but two opinions, valid onlyto the two people who made them! (I suppose that there are some who if Van said “ jump off a cliff” they would). In Van’s case he is an aircraft designer, notan engine designer, and his purpose is to design an aircraft that appeals to the widest audience. In this he hasbeen successful. Based on the comments I have read, most people have enough trouble putting together this well designed airplane with a large quantity of holes already located. These people probably shouldn’t deviate from the standard engine. Others, however, are able to assemble the airplane with little problem, and have a great deal of knowledge in auto engines. Theyknow enough to recognize the problems and feel they are able to properly address them. Most of these people willbe successful. Sure it would be nice to have decades of data on thousands of engines, however, just because we don’t doesn’t mean that the application will be unsuccessful. Just like Orville and Wilber, someone has to be first, or we make no progress as a society. ( My opinion is that the Lycis destined to be eliminated sometime in the future. Whether it is replaced by an auto engine, rotary, or something like the new diesel’s, I don’t know, but I think it will be replaced.) The nice thing about this country is that anyone can try anything. Some will kill themselves in the process, and that’s ok. Some will be successful and that’s ok. But everyone has the chance to make their own decisions, and that isthe way it should be. There are many auto engines flying, some successful, somenot so successful. My observations are that there are more and more of these being installed in airplanes, and the curve is on a strong upward slope. My hope is that in several years when I reach the point of making an engine decision there will be more data available. What I can say is that when that time comes I will review and study what is available so I can make my own informed decision on what is the best for me.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
Jim Carter
-----Original Message-----
From: jandkstevenson@a... [mailto:jandkstevenson@a...]
Sent: Thursday, 2001.08.30 3:20 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
It does seem strange that all the so called experts are
pushing something that has not been proven
Van says to go with the lyc. So do I.
Look at the records not many auto engines work in an
aircraft. The only one at at this time that has a chance
is the mazda. The one item in favor of the auto engine
is the cost of life or should I say fuel. Be serious the
auto engine has not worked in an airplane
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
> John,
>
> re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
> serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
> else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
> justify it."
>
> There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
> conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about-
> but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
>
> While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
> my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
> engine, especially on that first flight.
>
> It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
> engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and gofly
> with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this? Am I
> a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
> conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
> possible.
>
> Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversionis
> to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt Rutan
> said about the same thing with the EZ's. It is somewhat indicative of
> the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
> recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong and
> the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as possible
> all the time.
>
> dd
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/)
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]>
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
Author: "Peter W Mountain" <peterm@...> Time: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:45 pm PDT Link
Gentlemen,
This subject has been has been beaten to death over the last 4 months. I am
going to be using a Subaru in my RV-7. That is my choice after hours and
hours of research. Look back in the list archives for this discussion or go
join the subaruaircraft discussion group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/subaruaircraft
I think you will be pleasantly suprised and if not, enjoy your 1950 vintage
Lycoming :)
Peter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jandkstevenson@a... [mailto:jandkstevenson@a...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
> It does seem strange that all the so called experts are
> pushing something that has not been proven
> Van says to go with the lyc. So do I.
> Look at the records not many auto engines work in an
> aircraft. The only one at at this time that has a chance
> is the mazda. The one item in favor of the auto engine
> is the cost of life or should I say fuel. Be serious the
> auto engine has not worked in an airplane
> > --- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
> > serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
> > else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
> > justify it."
> >
> > There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
> > conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about -
> > but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
> >
> > While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
> > my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
> > engine, especially on that first flight.
> >
> > It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
> > engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and go fly
> > with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this? Am I
> > a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
> > conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversion is
> > to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt Rutan
> > said about the same thing with the EZ's. It is somewhat indicative of
> > the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
> > recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong and
> > the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as possible
> > all the time.
> >
> > dd
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "Luethi, Matt" <mluethi@...> Time: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:51 pm PDT Link
good for you, peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter W Mountain [mailto:peterm@c...]
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2001 12:46 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
Gentlemen,
This subject has been has been beaten to death over the last 4 months. I am
going to be using a Subaru in my RV-7. That is my choice after hours and
hours of research. Look back in the list archives for this discussion or go
join the subaruaircraft discussion group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/subaruaircraft
I think you will be pleasantly suprised and if not, enjoy your 1950 vintage
Lycoming :)
Peter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jandkstevenson@a... [mailto:jandkstevenson@a...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
> It does seem strange that all the so called experts are
> pushing something that has not been proven
> Van says to go with the lyc. So do I.
> Look at the records not many auto engines work in an
> aircraft. The only one at at this time that has a chance
> is the mazda. The one item in favor of the auto engine
> is the cost of life or should I say fuel. Be serious the
> auto engine has not worked in an airplane
> > --- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
> > serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
> > else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
> > justify it."
> >
> > There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
> > conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about -
> > but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
> >
> > While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
> > my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
> > engine, especially on that first flight.
> >
> > It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
> > engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and go fly
> > with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this? Am I
> > a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
> > conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversion is
> > to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt Rutan
> > said about the same thing with the EZ's. It is somewhat indicative of
> > the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
> > recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong and
> > the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as possible
> > all the time.
> >
> > dd
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "LaMascus Dustin (NET/Dallas)" <Dustin.LaMascus@...> Time: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:49 am PDT Link
Where can I unsubscribe from the auto vs. lyc engine group?
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Luethi, Matt [mailto:mluethi@e...]
Sent: 30 August, 2001 19:51
To: 'RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
good for you, peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter W Mountain [mailto:peterm@c...]
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2001 12:46 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
Gentlemen,
This subject has been has been beaten to death over the last 4 months. I
am
going to be using a Subaru in my RV-7. That is my choice after hours and
hours of research. Look back in the list archives for this discussion or
go
join the subaruaircraft discussion group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/subaruaircraft
I think you will be pleasantly suprised and if not, enjoy your 1950
vintage
Lycoming :)
Peter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jandkstevenson@a... [mailto:jandkstevenson@a...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:20 PM
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
> It does seem strange that all the so called experts are
> pushing something that has not been proven
> Van says to go with the lyc. So do I.
> Look at the records not many auto engines work in an
> aircraft. The only one at at this time that has a chance
> is the mazda. The one item in favor of the auto engine
> is the cost of life or should I say fuel. Be serious the
> auto engine has not worked in an airplane
> > --- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
> > serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
> > else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
> > justify it."
> >
> > There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
> > conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about -
> > but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
> >
> > While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
> > my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
> > engine, especially on that first flight.
> >
> > It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
> > engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and go
fly
> > with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this?
Am I
> > a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
> > conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversion
is
> > to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt
Rutan
> > said about the same thing with the EZ's. It is somewhat indicative
of
> > the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
> > recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong
and
> > the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as
possible
> > all the time.
> >
> > dd
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "Letourneau, David F SITI-IT-ISAA" <dfletourneau@...> Time: Tue Sep 4, 2001 8:56 am PDT Link
Jim
Very well said!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Carter [mailto:jim@t...]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:21 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaru ej22t engine
Quote:
I find it very interesting that some people have such strong opinions and are delighted to condemn and label anyone who doesn't share the same. For instance " Van says to go with a Lyc. So do I." This is but two opinions, validonly to the two people who made them! (I suppose that there are some who if Van said " jump off a cliff" they would). In Van's case he is an aircraft designer, not an engine designer, and his purpose is to design an aircraft that appeals to the widest audience. In this he has been successful. Based on the comments I have read, most people have enough trouble putting together this well designed airplane with a large quantity of holes already located. These people probably shouldn't deviate from the standard engine. Others, however, are able to assemble the airplane with little problem, and have a great deal of knowledge in auto engines. They know enough to recognize the problems and feel they are able to properly address them. Most of these people will be successful. Sure it would be nice to have decades of data on thousands of engines, however, just because we don't doesn't mean that the application will be unsuccessful. Just like Orville and Wilber, someone has to be first, or we make no progress as a society. ( My opinion is that the Lyc is destined to be eliminated sometime in the future. Whether it is replaced by an auto engine, rotary, or something like the new diesel's, I don't know, but I think it will be replaced.) The nice thing about this country is that anyone can try anything. Some will kill themselves in the process, and that's ok. Some will be successful and that's ok. But everyone has the chance to make their own decisions, and that is the way it should be. There are many auto engines flying, some successful, some not so successful. My observations are that there are more and more of these being installed in airplanes, and the curve is on a strong upward slope. My hope is that in several years when I reach the point of making an engine decision there will be more data available. What I can say is that when that time comes I will review and study what is available so I can make my own informed decision on what is the best for me.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
Jim Carter
-----Original Message-----
From: jandkstevenson@a... [mailto:jandkstevenson@a...]
Sent: Thursday, 2001.08.30 3:20 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Subaruej22t engine
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
It does seem strange that all the so called experts are
pushing something that has not been proven
Van says to go with the lyc. So do I.
Look at the records not many auto engines work in an
aircraft. The only one at at this time that has a chance
is the mazda. The one item in favor of the auto engine
is the cost of life or should I say fuel. Be serious the
auto engine has not worked in an airplane
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "John Kelley" <j12321k@y...> wrote:
> John,
>
> re "The concequences of engine problems in a plane are somewhat more
> serious. I would love to use Jan's engine in a RV, just want someone
> else to get a few thousand hours on 15 or 20 engines before I can
> justify it."
>
> There certainly is a lot of information with regard to engine
> conversions - true experimentation which is what this is all about -
> but for me the airplane itself is enough experimentation.
>
> While being no "last word expert" on the subject, this RV project is
> my third and I much prefer the proven reliability of an aircraft
> engine, especially on that first flight.
>
> It is fun and interesting to plan and speculate about a conversion
> engine, but it is quite another matter to strap yourself in and go fly
> with it. My question always is, what is the point of doing this? Am I
> a test pilot for some company that wants to make money selling
> conversions or do I want to enjoy flying my project as soon as
> possible.
>
> Somewhere in the Van's literiture it is stated the best conversion is
> to convert your money to a Lycoming....and a long time ago Burt Rutan
> said about the same thing withthe EZ's. It is somewhat indicative of
> the seriousness of the matter in that no major aircraft designer
> recommends an auto conversion. They know many things can go wrong and
> the name of the game is keep the odds in your favor as much as possible
> all the time.
>
> dd
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/)
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]><![endif]>
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Termsof Service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).
(end of quote)