Author: "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@...> Time: Wed Jan 2, 2002 8:06 pm PST Link
At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales & Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine web-site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :) PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to this letter but things are changing fast, JAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build a "new
technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as the
base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and certify a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic technologies. IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE FORCED TO USE AN EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they were finished, they had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier, burned about the same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as reliable OPINION as the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the way, still had to burn 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a Production Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it did not prove to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming. OPINION. THE PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE EXPERIMENTATION WAS, THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE 300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES / YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS, RUNNING 75-80% CONTINUOUSLY.
I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has bitten the
dust, and all those applications are now being replaced with "old
technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO MUCH CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually get is
that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is even older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern" opposed
engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in the late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE PARTS ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T WANT IN OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR VENDORS, SPLIT PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK THESE UP SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS, PUSHRODS AND PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN FLORIDA. NO NEW TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE SENT OUT TO BE HEAT TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING SOLD AND INSTALLED, BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over the
years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES that have
continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE RECENTLY GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE AND IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING THEM YOU WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT IT WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you must meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy Radio Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc. (And also, the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic controls on piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what is required.) No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet any of these requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the curb. At the same time, all this must be done at a cost that is affordable to aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT ONE. JUST LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE PROBLEMS. THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING THE CAR FOR 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD. IMAGINE WHAT SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL BATTERIES AND A BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN IN THE CAR?
The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more than $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a lot of fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to make its system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is replacing. NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS, MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major technical
partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This engine
is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to start in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be 230
HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that from the
late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a great deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are selling less than 300
engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What is the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND RUN THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING THE ENGINE.
How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on your
investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make that investment and they are much larger companies and have much more R&D money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above. However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out to certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology" aircraft, but choosing to stay with proven technology engines. (This is not to say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine manufacturers to develop new technologies.)
While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out there
such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been a successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an aircraft engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST For one thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power during its life and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS INTERNALLY MUCH STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS INTERNAL STRESS An aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An automobile engine is also not designed to deal with a 20 year life cycle that an aircraft engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have proven to provide long, reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond. NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #. MOST ENGINES NEED TOP OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE 2000 HR. DO A SEARCH ON LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS INTERNAL ENGINE PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL PUMPS AND OIL GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS, STUCK VALVES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE CYCLES, HEAVY STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON AND ON.
Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION Virtually every airport has mechanics
who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can your
automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts, service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO MECHANICS ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS WELL. THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY MODERN CAR.
We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature you have
requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a decision. (THE DEALER :)
They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their kits
builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH SUBARU'S
We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
Kindest regards,
Paul A. LeFevre
Director of Sales & Marketing
PAL-01348-em
JAN EGGENFELLNER
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: Mark Olson <molson1@...> Time: Wed Jan 2, 2002 8:30 pm PST Link
Thanks for forwarding this, but I have to say it looks like propaganda -
from both sides. My take on the Subaru conversion is that it is lower
cost, but other than that it's ay best a wash. And I still am not
convinced that the failure modes are known at all, there will have to be
a lot of them flying a lot of hours before all of this is figured out.
Until then, I'll let braver souls than I be the "guinea pigs", so to
speak.
I do like, however, the availability of alternatives to the "standard"
aircraft engine. Maybe the "competition", such as it is, will someday
drive the cost lower. Maybe in a couple of years a diesel alternative
engine will be available, such as the one that Continental is working on
for the GAP program. I saw
one of these at Oshkosh and it did indeed look promising.
Larry Hackney wrote:
> At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
>
> I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales &
> Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I
> forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine
> web-site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :)
> PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to this
> letter but things are changing fast, JAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build a "new
> technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as the
> base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and certify
> a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic technologies.
> IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE FORCED TO USE AN
> EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they were finished, they
> had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier, burned about the
> same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as reliable OPINION as
> the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the way, still had to burn
> 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a Production
> Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it did not prove
> to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming. OPINION. THE
> PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE EXPERIMENTATION WAS,
> THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE 300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES /
> YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE
> IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS, ! RUNNING 75-80%
> CONTINUOUSLY.
> I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has bitten
> the
> dust, and all those applications are now being replaced with "old
> technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A
> HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR
> CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO MUCH
> CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
>
> One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually get
> is
> that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is even
> older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern"
> opposed
> engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in the
> late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE PARTS
> ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T WANT IN
> OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR VENDORS, SPLIT
> PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK THESE UP SEVERAL
> HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS, PUSHRODS AND
> PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN FLORIDA. NO NEW
> TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW
> AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE SENT OUT TO BE HEAT
> TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING SOLD AND INSTALLED,
> BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU
> JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
>
> Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over the
> years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF
> WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS
> DIRECTIVES that have
> continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY
> PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE RECENTLY
> GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE AND
> IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING THEM YOU
> WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE
> WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine
> controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT IT
> WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
> This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you must
> meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy Radio
> Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc. (And also,
> the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic controls on
> piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what is required.)
> No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet any of these
> requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the curb. At the
> same time, all this must be done at a cost that is affordable to
> aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS
> RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT ONE. JUST
> LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE PROBLEMS.
> THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS WHILE THEY ARE
> RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING THE CAR FOR
> 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE ! HOOD. IMAGINE WHAT
> SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL BATTERIES AND A
> BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN IN THE CAR?
>
> The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more than
> $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a lot of
> fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to make its
> system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is replacing.
> NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS, MECHANICAL INJECTION
> SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
>
> Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major
> technical
> partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This
> engine
> is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to start
> in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be 230
> HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
>
> The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that from
> the
> late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston
> aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in
> bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a
> thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a great
> deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in
> Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are selling
> less than 300
> engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What is
> the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND RUN
> THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING
> THE ENGINE.
> How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on
> your
> investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make that
> investment and they are much larger companies and have much more R&D
> money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
> Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has
> allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above.
> However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out to
> certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology" aircraft,
> but choosing to stay with proven technology engines. (This is not to
> say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine manufacturers to
> develop new technologies.)
>
> While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out
> there
> such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been a
> successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an aircraft
> engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST For one
> thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power during its life
> and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS INTERNALLY MUCH
> STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS INTERNAL STRESS An
> aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An automobile engine is
> also not designed to deal with a 20 year life cycle that an aircraft
> engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have proven to provide long,
> reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond. NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE
> COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #. MOST ENGINES NEED TOP
> OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE 2000 HR. DO A SEARCH ON
> LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS INTERNAL ENGINE
> PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL PUMPS AND ! OIL
> GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS, STUCK VALVES AND
> OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE CYCLES, HEAVY
> STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON AND ON.
>
> Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
> distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION Virtually
> every airport has mechanics
> who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can your
>
> automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts,
> service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU
> DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO MECHANICS
> ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING
> OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS WELL.
> THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY MODERN
> CAR.
>
> We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature you
> have
> requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a
> decision. (THE DEALER :)
> They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their kits
>
> builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS
> CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH SUBARU'S
>
> We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Paul A. LeFevre
> Director of Sales & Marketing
> PAL-01348-em
> JAN EGGENFELLNER
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Author: "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@...> Time: Wed Jan 2, 2002 10:24 pm PST Link
Mark,
As a former RV6A owner and future RV7A builder, I'm sort of on the fence myself. (I hope to start the kit this Summer) I like what I hear about the Subaru conversion engines but since I won't need one for a little while I'll have time to gather a little more data. Just thought I'd pass along the response from Jan for anyone else who might be interested...
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Olson
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Food for thought...
Thanks for forwarding this, but I have to say it looks like propaganda -
from both sides. My take on the Subaru conversion is that it is lower
cost, but other than that it's ay best a wash. And I still am not
convinced that the failure modes are known at all, there will have to be
a lot of them flying a lot of hours before all of this is figured out.
Until then, I'll let braver souls than I be the "guinea pigs", so to
speak.
I do like, however, the availability of alternatives to the "standard"
aircraft engine. Maybe the "competition", such as it is, will someday
drive the cost lower. Maybe in a couple of years a diesel alternative
engine will be available, such as the one that Continental is working on
for the GAP program. I saw
one of these at Oshkosh and it did indeed look promising.
Larry Hackney wrote:
> At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
>
> I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales &
> Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I
> forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine
> web-site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :)
> PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to this
> letter but things are changing fast, JAN
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build a "new
> technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as the
> base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and certify
> a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic technologies.
> IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE FORCED TO USE AN
> EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they were finished, they
> had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier, burned about the
> same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as reliable OPINION as
> the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the way, still had to burn
> 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a Production
> Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it did not prove
> to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming. OPINION. THE
> PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE EXPERIMENTATION WAS,
> THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE 300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES /
> YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE
> IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS, ! RUNNING 75-80%
> CONTINUOUSLY.
> I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has bitten
> the
> dust, and all those applications are now being replaced with "old
> technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A
> HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR
> CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO MUCH
> CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
>
> One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually get
> is
> that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is even
> older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern"
> opposed
> engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in the
> late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE PARTS
> ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T WANT IN
> OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR VENDORS, SPLIT
> PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK THESE UP SEVERAL
> HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS, PUSHRODS AND
> PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN FLORIDA. NO NEW
> TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW
> AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE SENT OUT TO BE HEAT
> TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING SOLD AND INSTALLED,
> BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU
> JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
>
> Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over the
> years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF
> WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS
> DIRECTIVES that have
> continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY
> PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE RECENTLY
> GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE AND
> IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING THEM YOU
> WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE
> WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine
> controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT IT
> WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
> This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you must
> meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy Radio
> Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc. (And also,
> the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic controls on
> piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what is required.)
> No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet any of these
> requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the curb. At the
> same time, all this must be done at a cost that is affordable to
> aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS
> RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT ONE. JUST
> LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE PROBLEMS.
> THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS WHILE THEY ARE
> RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING THE CAR FOR
> 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE ! HOOD. IMAGINE WHAT
> SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL BATTERIES AND A
> BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN IN THE CAR?
>
> The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more than
> $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a lot of
> fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to make its
> system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is replacing.
> NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS, MECHANICAL INJECTION
> SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
>
> Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major
> technical
> partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This
> engine
> is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to start
> in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be 230
> HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
>
> The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that from
> the
> late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston
> aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in
> bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a
> thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a great
> deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in
> Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are selling
> less than 300
> engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What is
> the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND RUN
> THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING
> THE ENGINE.
> How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on
> your
> investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make that
> investment and they are much larger companies and have much more R&D
> money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
> Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has
> allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above.
> However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out to
> certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology" aircraft,
> but choosing to stay with proven technology engines. (This is not to
> say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine manufacturers to
> develop new technologies.)
>
> While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out
> there
> such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been a
> successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an aircraft
> engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST For one
> thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power during its life
> and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS INTERNALLY MUCH
> STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS INTERNAL STRESS An
> aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An automobile engine is
> also not designed to deal with a 20 year life cycle that an aircraft
> engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have proven to provide long,
> reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond. NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE
> COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #. MOST ENGINES NEED TOP
> OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE 2000 HR. DO A SEARCH ON
> LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS INTERNAL ENGINE
> PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL PUMPS AND ! OIL
> GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS, STUCK VALVES AND
> OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE CYCLES, HEAVY
> STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON AND ON.
>
> Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
> distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION Virtually
> every airport has mechanics
> who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can your
>
> automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts,
> service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU
> DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO MECHANICS
> ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING
> OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS WELL.
> THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY MODERN
> CAR.
>
> We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature you
> have
> requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a
> decision. (THE DEALER :)
> They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their kits
>
> builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS
> CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH SUBARU'S
>
> We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Paul A. LeFevre
> Director of Sales & Marketing
> PAL-01348-em
> JAN EGGENFELLNER
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "rp10294648" <rpflanze2@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 5:02 am PST Link
I had given the Subaru some thought and decided against it. After
reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and his Q/A on his web
site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through his BS with a fine
toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I can't believe it. He
is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of Lycoming but then he
freely switches between facts and opinion himself.
I have no problem with anyone who want't to put a used automobile
engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in love with the Lycosaur
either. But I've got enough things to worry about when I fly. I
don't need to add to that by being a "reliability test bed" for
Eggenfellner.
To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in safety and reliability
and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
Randy Pflanzer
RV-6 (Sold)
RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
>
> I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales &
Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I
forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine web-
site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
>
> MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :)
PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to this
letter but things are changing fast, JAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
> A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build a "new
> technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as
the
> base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and
certify a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic
technologies. IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE
FORCED TO USE AN EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they were
finished, they had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier,
burned about the same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as
reliable OPINION as the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the way,
still had to burn 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a
Production Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it
did not prove to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming.
OPINION. THE PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE
EXPERIMENTATION WAS, THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE
300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES / YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF
THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS,
RUNNING 75-80% CONTINUOUSLY.
> I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has
bitten the
> dust, and all those applications are now being replaced with "old
> technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A
HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR
CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO MUCH
CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
>
> One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually
get is
> that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is even
older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern"
opposed
> engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in
the late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE
PARTS ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T
WANT IN OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR
VENDORS, SPLIT PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK
THESE UP SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS,
PUSHRODS AND PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN
FLORIDA. NO NEW TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE
PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE
SENT OUT TO BE HEAT TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING
SOLD AND INSTALLED, BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT
TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF
WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
>
> Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over
the
> years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF
WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES that have
> continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY
PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE RECENTLY
GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE
AND IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING THEM
YOU WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE
WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine
controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT IT
WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
> This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you
must meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy
Radio Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc.
(And also, the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic
controls on piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what is
required.) No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet any
of these requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the
curb. At the same time, all this must be done at a cost that is
affordable to aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC
COMPUTERS RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT
ONE. JUST LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE
PROBLEMS. THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS
WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING
THE CAR FOR 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD.
IMAGINE WHAT SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL
BATTERIES AND A BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN
IN THE CAR?
>
> The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more
than $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a
lot of fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to make
its system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is
replacing. NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS, MECHANICAL
INJECTION SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
>
> Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major
technical
> partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This
engine
> is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to
start in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be
230
> HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
>
> The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that from
the
> late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston
aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in
bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a
thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a great
deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in
Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are
selling less than 300
> engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What is
the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND RUN
THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING
THE ENGINE.
> How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on
your
> investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make
that investment and they are much larger companies and have much more
R&D money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
> Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has
allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above.
However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out
to certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology"
aircraft, but choosing to stay with proven technology engines. (This
is not to say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine
manufacturers to develop new technologies.)
>
> While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out
there
> such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been
a successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an
aircraft engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST
For one thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power during
its life and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS
INTERNALLY MUCH STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS
INTERNAL STRESS An aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An
automobile engine is also not designed to deal with a 20 year life
cycle that an aircraft engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have
proven to provide long, reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond.
NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #.
MOST ENGINES NEED TOP OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE 2000
HR. DO A SEARCH ON LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS
INTERNAL ENGINE PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL
PUMPS AND OIL GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS,
STUCK VALVES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE
CYCLES, HEAVY STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON
AND ON.
>
> Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
> distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION
Virtually every airport has mechanics
> who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can
your
> automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts,
service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU
DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO MECHANICS
ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING
OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS
WELL. THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY
MODERN CAR.
>
> We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature you
have
> requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a
decision. (THE DEALER :)
> They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their
kits
> builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS
CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH
SUBARU'S
>
> We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Paul A. LeFevre
> Director of Sales & Marketing
> PAL-01348-em
> JAN EGGENFELLNER
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "luscombe68017" <luscombe68017@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 7:28 am PST Link
More food for thought. I understand that Avemco will insure Jan's
package--at $3800.00 per year, whereas NationAir will insure a 6 with
a "real" engine for $1600 per year. Too often people get into a
plane and find out they cannot afford to insure it. Look at the
Harmon Rocket. The last two companies that were writing coverage for
it have discontinued doing so last year. You are limiting your
options with an alternate engine in an already tight insurance market.
John Kunkle
RV6 working on fuse
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "rp10294648" <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:
> I had given the Subaru some thought and decided against it. After
> reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and his Q/A on his web
> site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through his BS with a fine
> toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I can't believe it.
He
> is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of Lycoming but then he
> freely switches between facts and opinion himself.
>
> I have no problem with anyone who want't to put a used automobile
> engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in love with the
Lycosaur
> either. But I've got enough things to worry about when I fly. I
> don't need to add to that by being a "reliability test bed" for
> Eggenfellner.
>
> To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in safety and
reliability
> and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
>
> Randy Pflanzer
> RV-6 (Sold)
> RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
Author: "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 10:01 am PST Link
Hmmm... Good point!
----- Original Message -----
From: luscombe68017
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:28 AM
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
More food for thought. I understand that Avemco will insure Jan's
package--at $3800.00 per year, whereas NationAir will insure a 6 with
a "real" engine for $1600 per year. Too often people get into a
plane and find out they cannot afford to insure it. Look at the
Harmon Rocket. The last two companies that were writing coverage for
it have discontinued doing so last year. You are limiting your
options with an alternate engine in an already tight insurance market.
John Kunkle
RV6 working on fuse
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "rp10294648" <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:
> I had given the Subaru some thought and decided against it. After
> reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and his Q/A on his web
> site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through his BS with a fine
> toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I can't believe it.
He
> is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of Lycoming but then he
> freely switches between facts and opinion himself.
>
> I have no problem with anyone who want't to put a used automobile
> engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in love with the
Lycosaur
> either. But I've got enough things to worry about when I fly. I
> don't need to add to that by being a "reliability test bed" for
> Eggenfellner.
>
> To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in safety and
reliability
> and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
>
> Randy Pflanzer
> RV-6 (Sold)
> RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Peter W. Mountain" <peterm@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 10:10 am PST Link
Randy,
Thank you for your "opinion", however, I have very carefully weighed up the
Pro's and Con's over the last 10 months and have decided to go with Mr.
Eggenfellner's firewall forward package. Also, in my "opinion", I have gone
through his logic and find it to be "sound".
Best regards
Peter Mountain
P.S. For my and my wife's well being, I hope we do prove you wrong :)
-----Original Message-----
From: rp10294648 [mailto:rpflanze2@h...]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:02 AM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
I had given the Subaru some thought and decided against it. After
reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and his Q/A on his web
site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through his BS with a fine
toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I can't believe it. He
is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of Lycoming but then he
freely switches between facts and opinion himself.
I have no problem with anyone who want't to put a used automobile
engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in love with the Lycosaur
either. But I've got enough things to worry about when I fly. I
don't need to add to that by being a "reliability test bed" for
Eggenfellner.
To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in safety and reliability
and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
Randy Pflanzer
RV-6 (Sold)
RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
>
> I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales &
Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I
forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine web-
site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
>
> MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :)
PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to this
letter but things are changing fast, JAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
> A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build a "new
> technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as
the
> base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and
certify a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic
technologies. IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE
FORCED TO USE AN EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they were
finished, they had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier,
burned about the same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as
reliable OPINION as the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the way,
still had to burn 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a
Production Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it
did not prove to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming.
OPINION. THE PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE
EXPERIMENTATION WAS, THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE
300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES / YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF
THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS,
RUNNING 75-80% CONTINUOUSLY.
> I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has
bitten the
> dust, and all those applications are now being replaced with "old
> technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A
HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR
CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO MUCH
CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
>
> One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually
get is
> that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is even
older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern"
opposed
> engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in
the late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE
PARTS ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T
WANT IN OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR
VENDORS, SPLIT PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK
THESE UP SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS,
PUSHRODS AND PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN
FLORIDA. NO NEW TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE
PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE
SENT OUT TO BE HEAT TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING
SOLD AND INSTALLED, BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT
TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF
WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
>
> Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over
the
> years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF
WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES that have
> continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY
PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE RECENTLY
GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE
AND IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING THEM
YOU WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE
WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine
controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT IT
WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
> This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you
must meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy
Radio Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc.
(And also, the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic
controls on piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what is
required.) No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet any
of these requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the
curb. At the same time, all this must be done at a cost that is
affordable to aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC
COMPUTERS RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT
ONE. JUST LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE
PROBLEMS. THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS
WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING
THE CAR FOR 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD.
IMAGINE WHAT SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL
BATTERIES AND A BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN
IN THE CAR?
>
> The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more
than $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a
lot of fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to make
its system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is
replacing. NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS, MECHANICAL
INJECTION SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
>
> Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major
technical
> partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This
engine
> is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to
start in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be
230
> HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
>
> The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that from
the
> late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston
aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in
bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a
thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a great
deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in
Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are
selling less than 300
> engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What is
the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND RUN
THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING
THE ENGINE.
> How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on
your
> investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make
that investment and they are much larger companies and have much more
R&D money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
> Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has
allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above.
However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out
to certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology"
aircraft, but choosing to stay with proven technology engines. (This
is not to say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine
manufacturers to develop new technologies.)
>
> While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out
there
> such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been
a successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an
aircraft engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST
For one thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power during
its life and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS
INTERNALLY MUCH STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS
INTERNAL STRESS An aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An
automobile engine is also not designed to deal with a 20 year life
cycle that an aircraft engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have
proven to provide long, reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond.
NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #.
MOST ENGINES NEED TOP OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE 2000
HR. DO A SEARCH ON LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS
INTERNAL ENGINE PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL
PUMPS AND OIL GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS,
STUCK VALVES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE
CYCLES, HEAVY STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON
AND ON.
>
> Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
> distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION
Virtually every airport has mechanics
> who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can
your
> automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts,
service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU
DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO MECHANICS
ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING
OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS
WELL. THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY
MODERN CAR.
>
> We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature you
have
> requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a
decision. (THE DEALER :)
> They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their
kits
> builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS
CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH
SUBARU'S
>
> We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Paul A. LeFevre
> Director of Sales & Marketing
> PAL-01348-em
> JAN EGGENFELLNER
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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: Clifford Dow <cdowjr@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 10:12 am PST Link
BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK?
As a stockbroker I could not help but calculate what
the subaru rv owner might spend over a 10 year period
having to pay $2,200 MORE each year for insurance.
If the Lycoming RV owner puts the $2,200 he saves each
year on insurance in the market and earns 10% per year
(an historical 100 year average return) - after 10
years he has about $38,566 MORE than the subaru RV
owner! I'll stick with Lycoming thank you.
cliff dow jr
cdowjr@y...
Maine Rv builder
--- Larry Hackney <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> Hmmm... Good point!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: luscombe68017
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:28 AM
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
> More food for thought. I understand that Avemco
> will insure Jan's
> package--at $3800.00 per year, whereas NationAir
> will insure a 6 with
> a "real" engine for $1600 per year. Too often
> people get into a
> plane and find out they cannot afford to insure
> it. Look at the
> Harmon Rocket. The last two companies that were
> writing coverage for
> it have discontinued doing so last year. You are
> limiting your
> options with an alternate engine in an already
> tight insurance market.
>
> John Kunkle
> RV6 working on fuse
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "rp10294648"
> <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:
> > I had given the Subaru some thought and decided
> against it. After
> > reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and
> his Q/A on his web
> > site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through
> his BS with a fine
> > toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I
> can't believe it.
> He
> > is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of
> Lycoming but then he
> > freely switches between facts and opinion
> himself.
> >
> > I have no problem with anyone who want't to put
> a used automobile
> > engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in
> love with the
> Lycosaur
> > either. But I've got enough things to worry
> about when I fly. I
> > don't need to add to that by being a
> "reliability test bed" for
> > Eggenfellner.
> >
> > To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in
> safety and
> reliability
> > and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
> >
> > Randy Pflanzer
> > RV-6 (Sold)
> > RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 10:30 am PST Link
Actually Avemco is very high for an RV regardless of what engine is
in it. The insurability issue of the Subaru is getting closer every
day to more insurance companies allowing it.
If a few of them get flying successfully for some period, the
insurance companies should be quite happy with Subaru, Lyc or
whatever is proven to work. It's not an emotional issue.
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., Clifford Dow <cdowjr@y...> wrote:
> BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK?
> As a stockbroker I could not help but calculate what
> the subaru rv owner might spend over a 10 year period
> having to pay $2,200 MORE each year for insurance.
> If the Lycoming RV owner puts the $2,200 he saves each
> year on insurance in the market and earns 10% per year
> (an historical 100 year average return) - after 10
> years he has about $38,566 MORE than the subaru RV
> owner! I'll stick with Lycoming thank you.
> cliff dow jr
> cdowjr@y...
> Maine Rv builder
Author: "wallaceenga" <wallaceenga@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 11:03 am PST Link
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "luscombe68017" <luscombe68017@y...> wrote:
> More food for thought. I understand that Avemco will insure Jan's
> package--at $3800.00 per year, whereas NationAir will insure a 6
with
> a "real" engine for $1600 per year. Too often people get into a
> plane and find out they cannot afford to insure it. Look at the
> Harmon Rocket. The last two companies that were writing coverage
for
> it have discontinued doing so last year. You are limiting your
> options with an alternate engine in an already tight insurance
market.
>
> John Kunkle
> RV6 working on fuse
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "rp10294648" <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:
Are you sure you are quoting premiums at the same coverage levels
with the same pilot ratings / hours?
Author: Paul Besing <azpilot@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 12:13 pm PST Link
Yes!!! I like your way of thinking!
--- Clifford Dow <cdowjr@y...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body
<tt>
BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK? <BR>
As a stockbroker I could not help but calculate
what<BR>
the subaru rv owner might spend over a 10 year
period<BR>
having to pay $2,200 MORE each year for
insurance. <BR>
If the Lycoming RV owner puts the $2,200 he saves
each<BR>
year on insurance in the market and earns 10% per
year<BR>
(an historical 100 year average return) - after 10<BR>
years he has about $38,566 MORE than the subaru RV<BR>
owner! I'll stick with Lycoming thank you.<BR>
cliff dow jr<BR>
cdowjr@y...<BR>
Maine Rv builder <BR>
<BR>
--- Larry Hackney <lhackney@r...>
wrote:<BR>
> Hmmm... Good point!<BR>
> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>
> From: luscombe68017 <BR>
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com <BR>
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:28
AM<BR>
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for
thought...<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> More food for thought. I
understand that Avemco<BR>
> will insure Jan's <BR>
> package--at $3800.00 per year,
whereas NationAir<BR>
> will insure a 6 with <BR>
> a "real" engine for $1600
per year. Too often<BR>
> people get into a <BR>
> plane and find out they cannot afford
to insure<BR>
> it. Look at the <BR>
> Harmon Rocket. The last two
companies that were<BR>
> writing coverage for <BR>
> it have discontinued doing so last
year. You are<BR>
> limiting your <BR>
> options with an alternate engine in
an already<BR>
> tight insurance market.<BR>
> <BR>
> John Kunkle<BR>
> RV6 working on fuse<BR>
> --- In RV7and7A@y...,
"rp10294648"<BR>
> <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:<BR>
> > I had given the Subaru some
thought and decided<BR>
> against it. After <BR>
> > reading Mr. Eggenfellner's
comments below and<BR>
> his Q/A on his web <BR>
> > site, I'm damn glad I did.
I won't go through<BR>
> his BS with a fine <BR>
> > toothed comb. His logic is
so full of holes I<BR>
> can't believe it. <BR>
> He <BR>
> > is quick to point out
"opinion" on the part of<BR>
> Lycoming but then he <BR>
> > freely switches between facts
and opinion<BR>
> himself.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > I have no problem with anyone
who want't to put<BR>
> a used automobile <BR>
> > engine on the front of their
bird. I'm not in<BR>
> love with the <BR>
> Lycosaur <BR>
> > either. But I've got
enough things to worry<BR>
> about when I fly. I <BR>
> > don't need to add to that by
being a<BR>
> "reliability test bed" for <BR>
> > Eggenfellner.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > To all who fly Subarus, I wish
you the best in<BR>
> safety and <BR>
> reliability <BR>
> > and hope you prove the rest of
us wrong.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Randy Pflanzer<BR>
> > RV-6 (Sold)<BR>
> > RV-7A (Waiting for wings)<BR>
> > <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor <BR>
>
ADVERTISEMENT<BR>
>
<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
<BR>
> www.vansaircraft.net<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
to the Yahoo!<BR>
> Terms of Service. <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been<BR>
> removed]<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!<BR>
<a
href="http://greetings.yahoo.com">http://greetings.yahoo.com</a><BR>
</tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705340085:HM/A=847665/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vbW9uc3RlcjcuZGF0=1010081531%3eM=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705340085:HM/A=847665/R=1"
target=_top><img
src="http://ads.x10.com/?Z3lhaG9vbW9uc3RlcjcuZGF0=1010081531%3eM=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705340085:HM/A=847665/R=2"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705340085:HM/A=847665/rand=331613427"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --
<br>
<tt>
<BR>
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing <BR>
www.vansaircraft.net<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Author: "artsett" <artsett@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 9:57 pm PST Link
BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK??
As a curious bystander and fellow numbers cruncher (not a
stockbroker),I must ask:
1. What is the value of the debt service for that 10 year period on
the difference between the "fully installed, ready to fly" cost of
the Subaru vs. the Lycoming??
2. What is the value of the debt service for the period of time
that these firewall forward packages sit in the hanger (I hope it's
ok to dream) waiting to be installed and go flying (1 week, 6 mos?)??
3. How many AD's $$$ is the Lycoming going to be hit with while it
sits on my garage floor,(Opps, I mean hanger) waiting to be installed?
4. How do we calculate the difference in engine operating costs and
maintenance reserves for the 10 year period, how many hours will I
get to fly? (Dang, the insurance may cost more than the fuel per
hour!)
5. Will the insurance cost go up, down, or Chapter 11 based on
future Subaru or Lycoming experience (claims).
All of this deep thought is giving me a headache.
I will probably go with a Lycoming also, but I don't think that I
will base any of my retirement plans on the cost differences between
the two. (Did I see a conversation on turbines, now were talking
numbers!!)
Art Settlemyer
RV-7 Wanabe
--- In RV7and7A@y..., Clifford Dow <cdowjr@y...> wrote:
> BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK?
> As a stockbroker I could not help but calculate what
> the subaru rv owner might spend over a 10 year period
> having to pay $2,200 MORE each year for insurance.
> If the Lycoming RV owner puts the $2,200 he saves each
> year on insurance in the market and earns 10% per year
> (an historical 100 year average return) - after 10
> years he has about $38,566 MORE than the subaru RV
> owner! I'll stick with Lycoming thank you.
> cliff dow jr
> cdowjr@y...
> Maine Rv builder
>
> --- Larry Hackney <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> > Hmmm... Good point!
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: luscombe68017
> > To: RV7and7A@y...
> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:28 AM
> > Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
> > More food for thought. I understand that Avemco
> > will insure Jan's
> > package--at $3800.00 per year, whereas NationAir
> > will insure a 6 with
> > a "real" engine for $1600 per year. Too often
> > people get into a
> > plane and find out they cannot afford to insure
> > it. Look at the
> > Harmon Rocket. The last two companies that were
> > writing coverage for
> > it have discontinued doing so last year. You are
> > limiting your
> > options with an alternate engine in an already
> > tight insurance market.
> >
> > John Kunkle
> > RV6 working on fuse
> > --- In RV7and7A@y..., "rp10294648"
> > <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:
> > > I had given the Subaru some thought and decided
> > against it. After
> > > reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and
> > his Q/A on his web
> > > site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through
> > his BS with a fine
> > > toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I
> > can't believe it.
> > He
> > > is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of
> > Lycoming but then he
> > > freely switches between facts and opinion
> > himself.
> > >
> > > I have no problem with anyone who want't to put
> > a used automobile
> > > engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in
> > love with the
> > Lycosaur
> > > either. But I've got enough things to worry
> > about when I fly. I
> > > don't need to add to that by being a
> > "reliability test bed" for
> > > Eggenfellner.
> > >
> > > To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in
> > safety and
> > reliability
> > > and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
> > >
> > > Randy Pflanzer
> > > RV-6 (Sold)
> > > RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
Author: "Kevin Hanson" <kmhanson3@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 11:09 pm PST Link
10% per year is very unrealistic over the next 10 years.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Clifford Dow [mailto:cdowjr@y...]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:12
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK?
As a stockbroker I could not help but calculate what
the subaru rv owner might spend over a 10 year period
having to pay $2,200 MORE each year for insurance.
If the Lycoming RV owner puts the $2,200 he saves each
year on insurance in the market and earns 10% per year
(an historical 100 year average return) - after 10
years he has about $38,566 MORE than the subaru RV
owner! I'll stick with Lycoming thank you.
cliff dow jr
cdowjr@y...
Maine Rv builder
--- Larry Hackney <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> Hmmm... Good point!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: luscombe68017
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:28 AM
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
> More food for thought. I understand that Avemco
> will insure Jan's
> package--at $3800.00 per year, whereas NationAir
> will insure a 6 with
> a "real" engine for $1600 per year. Too often
> people get into a
> plane and find out they cannot afford to insure
> it. Look at the
> Harmon Rocket. The last two companies that were
> writing coverage for
> it have discontinued doing so last year. You are
> limiting your
> options with an alternate engine in an already
> tight insurance market.
>
> John Kunkle
> RV6 working on fuse
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "rp10294648"
> <rpflanze2@h...> wrote:
> > I had given the Subaru some thought and decided
> against it. After
> > reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and
> his Q/A on his web
> > site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through
> his BS with a fine
> > toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I
> can't believe it.
> He
> > is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of
> Lycoming but then he
> > freely switches between facts and opinion
> himself.
> >
> > I have no problem with anyone who want't to put
> a used automobile
> > engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in
> love with the
> Lycosaur
> > either. But I've got enough things to worry
> about when I fly. I
> > don't need to add to that by being a
> "reliability test bed" for
> > Eggenfellner.
> >
> > To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in
> safety and
> reliability
> > and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
> >
> > Randy Pflanzer
> > RV-6 (Sold)
> > RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@...> Time: Thu Jan 3, 2002 11:41 pm PST Link
On this note:
> Are you sure you are quoting premiums at the same coverage levels
> with the same pilot ratings / hours?
I am a first-time homebuilder, building an RV-7, planning on putting in a
200hp Lycoming IO-360A3B6 (or a LyCon or Bart conversion or something
similar). I would love to get a sense of the "insurance pricing matrix",
which I guess would include the following (and probably several other)
axes/variables:
- hull value
- coverage limits
- pilot's total hours
- pilot's ratings
- pilot's tailwheel time (is this a factor?)
- first time builder (is this a factor?)
- engine type/certification/size (is size/horsepower a factor?)
- existing policy (same insurance co. or other) on a production aircraft
(is this a factor?)
Is there anybody out there who knows the definitive set of variables that
are taken into account? Does it vary from company to company?
I have high total time, a handful of ratings, plenty of tailwheel & retract
time (for whatever that's worth), I fly regularly, etc. I haven't gone
ahead and gotten a quote for my RV-7 yet (it'll be at least a year or two at
this rate), but I'd love to find out roughly what it's gonna run me...or at
least what it would cost today.
I wonder if there's any way to create an N-dimensional poll of sorts...where
currently flying RV pilots can enter the values for all these variables and
we could come up with some sort of meaningful average. Any ideas? I guess
short of something fancy, if anybody feels compelled to post their
information to the list (or feel free to send it to me privately if you
prefer), please do!
Thanks,
)_( Dan
dan@r...
http://www.rvproject.com:8000
Author: "rp10294648" <rpflanze2@...> Time: Fri Jan 4, 2002 5:40 am PST Link
Not opinion, but rather a conclusion based upon an analysis of
the "facts" from Lycoming and Eggenfellner regarding their respective
engines. Not to flame anyone who intends to put a Subaru up front,
but for the benefit of anyone who is on the fence, here is how I
analyzed the choice:
For me, I considered two factors, safety and cost. Safety covers
such items as reliability, durability, and an analysis of the risk.
It is safe to say that the jury is still out on the Subaru regarding
reliability and durability. Despite claims of "just go ask a Subaru
dealer...." and "the engine case is stronger..", I have seen NO
FACTUAL statistics that would allow the Subaru engine to claim that
it is even as reliable or durable as the Lycoming. The "fact" is
that there just isn't enough emperical data yet to know just how
reliable and durable the Subaru will turn out to be. Eggenfellner
can quote statistics on the failure modes of the Lycoming because
such emperical data exists and is in the public forum. Where is the
same data for Subaru? Just because it doesn't exist doesn't imply
the Subaru is any better. And when you look at the accident
statistics regarding catastrophic engine failure, the rate is
extremely low. Despite some of the well publicized Lycoming problems
recently, you have to admit that the Lyc's are durable. My opinion
is that the Subaru would do well to just duplicate the durability and
reliability record of Lycoming, and the Subaru is a choice which
entails more risk than the Lycoming. Don't forget the reliability
and durability of the propeller either. That's another can of worms
to look at. If in fact Eggenfellner has developed an engine
combination that eluded the combined engineering departments of
Toyota and Porsche, my hat is off to him.
With regard to cost, I was initially impressed with the Subaru
numbers. Since the Subaru web site uses the O-320 as a comparision
point in the Q/A section, I'll do the same. The O-320 in my RV-6
cost $14,500 from Bart. I concede that the Subaru will be able to
deliver more horsepower than the Lycoming at all altitudes. My
engine from Bart was a zero time engine rebuilt to new engine
tolerances. I got 160 kts cruise at 6,000 ft buring 7.8 gal.hr. The
Subaru is taken from a wrecked car in a junkyard without the benefit
of anything more than a superficial teardown. I understand that only
engines that fit a certain profile are used, but the "fact" remains
that the engine is not internally disassembled and checked for
tolerances so it can't be stated factually what the tolerances are
for a particular engine. For Lycoming, those tolerances are
published. When you factor in the reduced resale value of my
airplane and the increased insurance costs, the Subaru actually looks
to cost more than the Lycoming.
For me, I wasn't willing to pay more for the additional performance
and the unknown reliability. If the numbers work for you, great.
I really would like to see the Subaru succeed. We need the
competition. But if anyone is considering using the Subaru, you
should do so with a complete understanding of the risks and costs.
Be skeptical of all claims until proven with facts, and above all be
safe. If it works for you, then Godspeed.
Randy Pflanzer
RV-7A
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Peter W. Mountain" <peterm@c...> wrote:
> Randy,
>
> Thank you for your "opinion", however, I have very carefully
weighed up the
> Pro's and Con's over the last 10 months and have decided to go with
Mr.
> Eggenfellner's firewall forward package. Also, in my "opinion", I
have gone
> through his logic and find it to be "sound".
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter Mountain
>
> P.S. For my and my wife's well being, I hope we do prove you
wrong :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rp10294648 [mailto:rpflanze2@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:02 AM
> To: RV7and7A@y...
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
>
> I had given the Subaru some thought and decided against it. After
> reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and his Q/A on his web
> site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through his BS with a fine
> toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I can't believe it. He
> is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of Lycoming but then he
> freely switches between facts and opinion himself.
>
> I have no problem with anyone who want't to put a used automobile
> engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in love with the
Lycosaur
> either. But I've got enough things to worry about when I fly. I
> don't need to add to that by being a "reliability test bed" for
> Eggenfellner.
>
> To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in safety and
reliability
> and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
>
> Randy Pflanzer
> RV-6 (Sold)
> RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> > At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
> >
> > I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales &
> Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I
> forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine
web-
> site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------------------------------
> >
> > MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :)
> PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to
this
> letter but things are changing fast, JAN
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------------------------------------
> > A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build
a "new
> > technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as
> the
> > base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and
> certify a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic
> technologies. IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE
> FORCED TO USE AN EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they
were
> finished, they had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier,
> burned about the same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as
> reliable OPINION as the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the
way,
> still had to burn 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a
> Production Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it
> did not prove to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming.
> OPINION. THE PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE
> EXPERIMENTATION WAS, THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE
> 300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES / YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF
> THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS,
> RUNNING 75-80% CONTINUOUSLY.
> > I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has
> bitten the
> > dust, and all those applications are now being replaced
with "old
> > technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A
> HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR
> CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO
MUCH
> CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
> >
> > One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually
> get is
> > that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is
even
> older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern"
> opposed
> > engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in
> the late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE
> PARTS ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T
> WANT IN OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR
> VENDORS, SPLIT PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK
> THESE UP SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS,
> PUSHRODS AND PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN
> FLORIDA. NO NEW TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE
> PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE
> SENT OUT TO BE HEAT TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING
> SOLD AND INSTALLED, BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT
> TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF
> WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
> >
> > Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over
> the
> > years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF
> WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS
> DIRECTIVES that have
> > continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY
> PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE
RECENTLY
> GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE
> AND IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING
THEM
> YOU WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE
> WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine
> controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT
IT
> WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
> > This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you
> must meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy
> Radio Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc.
> (And also, the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic
> controls on piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what
is
> required.) No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet
any
> of these requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the
> curb. At the same time, all this must be done at a cost that is
> affordable to aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC
> COMPUTERS RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT
> ONE. JUST LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE
> PROBLEMS. THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS
> WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING
> THE CAR FOR 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD.
> IMAGINE WHAT SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL
> BATTERIES AND A BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN
> IN THE CAR?
> >
> > The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more
> than $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a
> lot of fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to
make
> its system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is
> replacing. NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS,
MECHANICAL
> INJECTION SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
> >
> > Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major
> technical
> > partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This
> engine
> > is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to
> start in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be
> 230
> > HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
> >
> > The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that
from
> the
> > late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston
> aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in
> bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a
> thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a
great
> deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in
> Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are
> selling less than 300
> > engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What
is
> the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND
RUN
> THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING
> THE ENGINE.
> > How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on
> your
> > investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make
> that investment and they are much larger companies and have much
more
> R&D money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
> > Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has
> allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above.
> However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out
> to certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology"
> aircraft, but choosing to stay with proven technology engines.
(This
> is not to say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine
> manufacturers to develop new technologies.)
> >
> > While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out
> there
> > such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been
> a successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an
> aircraft engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST
> For one thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power
during
> its life and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS
> INTERNALLY MUCH STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS
> INTERNAL STRESS An aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An
> automobile engine is also not designed to deal with a 20 year life
> cycle that an aircraft engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have
> proven to provide long, reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond.
> NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #.
> MOST ENGINES NEED TOP OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE
2000
> HR. DO A SEARCH ON LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS
> INTERNAL ENGINE PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL
> PUMPS AND OIL GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS,
> STUCK VALVES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE
> CYCLES, HEAVY STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON
> AND ON.
> >
> > Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
> > distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION
> Virtually every airport has mechanics
> > who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can
> your
> > automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts,
> service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU
> DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO
MECHANICS
> ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING
> OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS
> WELL. THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY
> MODERN CAR.
> >
> > We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature
you
> have
> > requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a
> decision. (THE DEALER :)
> > They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their
> kits
> > builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS
> CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH
> SUBARU'S
> >
> > We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Paul A. LeFevre
> > Director of Sales & Marketing
> > PAL-01348-em
> > JAN EGGENFELLNER
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 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: "Peter W. Mountain" <peterm@...> Time: Fri Jan 4, 2002 10:00 am PST Link
Thank you Randy.
Best regards
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: rp10294648 [mailto:rpflanze2@h...]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 6:40 AM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
Not opinion, but rather a conclusion based upon an analysis of
the "facts" from Lycoming and Eggenfellner regarding their respective
engines. Not to flame anyone who intends to put a Subaru up front,
but for the benefit of anyone who is on the fence, here is how I
analyzed the choice:
For me, I considered two factors, safety and cost. Safety covers
such items as reliability, durability, and an analysis of the risk.
It is safe to say that the jury is still out on the Subaru regarding
reliability and durability. Despite claims of "just go ask a Subaru
dealer...." and "the engine case is stronger..", I have seen NO
FACTUAL statistics that would allow the Subaru engine to claim that
it is even as reliable or durable as the Lycoming. The "fact" is
that there just isn't enough emperical data yet to know just how
reliable and durable the Subaru will turn out to be. Eggenfellner
can quote statistics on the failure modes of the Lycoming because
such emperical data exists and is in the public forum. Where is the
same data for Subaru? Just because it doesn't exist doesn't imply
the Subaru is any better. And when you look at the accident
statistics regarding catastrophic engine failure, the rate is
extremely low. Despite some of the well publicized Lycoming problems
recently, you have to admit that the Lyc's are durable. My opinion
is that the Subaru would do well to just duplicate the durability and
reliability record of Lycoming, and the Subaru is a choice which
entails more risk than the Lycoming. Don't forget the reliability
and durability of the propeller either. That's another can of worms
to look at. If in fact Eggenfellner has developed an engine
combination that eluded the combined engineering departments of
Toyota and Porsche, my hat is off to him.
With regard to cost, I was initially impressed with the Subaru
numbers. Since the Subaru web site uses the O-320 as a comparision
point in the Q/A section, I'll do the same. The O-320 in my RV-6
cost $14,500 from Bart. I concede that the Subaru will be able to
deliver more horsepower than the Lycoming at all altitudes. My
engine from Bart was a zero time engine rebuilt to new engine
tolerances. I got 160 kts cruise at 6,000 ft buring 7.8 gal.hr. The
Subaru is taken from a wrecked car in a junkyard without the benefit
of anything more than a superficial teardown. I understand that only
engines that fit a certain profile are used, but the "fact" remains
that the engine is not internally disassembled and checked for
tolerances so it can't be stated factually what the tolerances are
for a particular engine. For Lycoming, those tolerances are
published. When you factor in the reduced resale value of my
airplane and the increased insurance costs, the Subaru actually looks
to cost more than the Lycoming.
For me, I wasn't willing to pay more for the additional performance
and the unknown reliability. If the numbers work for you, great.
I really would like to see the Subaru succeed. We need the
competition. But if anyone is considering using the Subaru, you
should do so with a complete understanding of the risks and costs.
Be skeptical of all claims until proven with facts, and above all be
safe. If it works for you, then Godspeed.
Randy Pflanzer
RV-7A
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Peter W. Mountain" <peterm@c...> wrote:
> Randy,
>
> Thank you for your "opinion", however, I have very carefully
weighed up the
> Pro's and Con's over the last 10 months and have decided to go with
Mr.
> Eggenfellner's firewall forward package. Also, in my "opinion", I
have gone
> through his logic and find it to be "sound".
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter Mountain
>
> P.S. For my and my wife's well being, I hope we do prove you
wrong :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rp10294648 [mailto:rpflanze2@h...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:02 AM
> To: RV7and7A@y...
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Food for thought...
>
> I had given the Subaru some thought and decided against it. After
> reading Mr. Eggenfellner's comments below and his Q/A on his web
> site, I'm damn glad I did. I won't go through his BS with a fine
> toothed comb. His logic is so full of holes I can't believe it. He
> is quick to point out "opinion" on the part of Lycoming but then he
> freely switches between facts and opinion himself.
>
> I have no problem with anyone who want't to put a used automobile
> engine on the front of their bird. I'm not in love with the
Lycosaur
> either. But I've got enough things to worry about when I fly. I
> don't need to add to that by being a "reliability test bed" for
> Eggenfellner.
>
> To all who fly Subarus, I wish you the best in safety and
reliability
> and hope you prove the rest of us wrong.
>
> Randy Pflanzer
> RV-6 (Sold)
> RV-7A (Waiting for wings)
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "Larry Hackney" <lhackney@r...> wrote:
> > At the risk of getting "flamed", I thought I'd share this...
> >
> > I read the comments from Paul A. LeFevre (Director of Sales &
> Marketing for Lycoming) that was attached to an RV e-mail. I
> forwarded it to Jan Eggenfellner from the Subaru aircraft engine
web-
> site and asked him to comment. Read his response below.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------------------------------
> >
> > MANY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO COMMENT ON THIS LETTER SO I WILL :)
> PLEASE SEE MY REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS ..... There is much truth to
this
> letter but things are changing fast, JAN
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------------------------------------
> > A few years ago, Toyota Motors decided they wanted to build
a "new
> > technology" aircraft engine using one of their Lexus engines as
> the
> > base. They spent close to 20 million dollars to develop and
> certify a liquid cooled engine with all the latest electronic
> technologies. IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUTDATED REGULATIONS THEY WERE
> FORCED TO USE AN EXPENSIVE MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEM When they
were
> finished, they had an engine that was much more expensive, heavier,
> burned about the same amount of fuel per horse power and was not as
> reliable OPINION as the "old technology" Lycoming. ( And by the
way,
> still had to burn 100LL). TO BE CERTIFIED Toyota never requested a
> Production Certificate (PC) for that engine, because in the end it
> did not prove to be any better than the "old technology" Lycoming.
> OPINION. THE PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT THE GOAL, ENGINE
> EXPERIMENTATION WAS, THERE IS NO FINANCIAL FUTURE FOR TOYOTA TO MAKE
> 300 AIRCRAFT ENGINES / YEAR. TRANSFERRING LIABILITY TO THE REST OF
> THE COMPANY. THIS ENGINE IS NOW USED IN BOATS WITH GREAT SUCCESS,
> RUNNING 75-80% CONTINUOUSLY.
> > I am sure you are aware of the Porsche project. It too, has
> bitten the
> > dust, and all those applications are now being replaced
with "old
> > technology" engines at Porsche's expense. A PORSCHE ENGINE IS A
> HIGH PERFORMANCE RACE ENGINE AND NOT THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR
> CONVERSION. THIS IS WHY WE DON'T USE THE SUBARU SVX ENGINE, TOO
MUCH
> CONTINUOUS POWER OUTPUT FOR THE DISPLACEMENT.
> >
> > One of the knocks that both Lycoming and Continental continually
> get is
> > that the engine technology is 40 years old. Actually, it is
even
> older than that. Lycoming recently delivered its 300,000th "modern"
> opposed
> > engine (to a Van's customer) and I believe that count started in
> the late 40s. LYCOMING DOES NOT MAKE PARTS FOR THEIR ENGINES. THE
> PARTS ARE MADE IN FACTORIES THAT USED TO SELL THE STUFF WE DIDN'T
> WANT IN OUR VW BEETLES. THEY USE THE LOWEST BIDDER FOR THEIR
> VENDORS, SPLIT PENNIES ON THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS AND THEN MARK
> THESE UP SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT. LYCOMING AND SUPERIOR CAMSHAFTS,
> PUSHRODS AND PUSHROD TUBES ARE ALL MADE IN THE SAME SMALL SHOP IN
> FLORIDA. NO NEW TECHNOLOGY HERE, JUST ORDER THE TUBING FOR THE
> PUSHRODS, CUT ON A SAW AND INSERT ENDS. STILL TO THIS DAY PARTS ARE
> SENT OUT TO BE HEAT TREATED AND SOMETIMES ARE RECALLED, AFTER BEING
> SOLD AND INSTALLED, BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERED THAT THE HEAT
> TREATMENT DIDN'T TAKE. YOU JUST DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF
> WITH JAPANESE CAR ENGINES.
> >
> > Lycoming does have an excellent engine design department. Over
> the
> > years it has made incremental changes to the engines THE COST OF
> WHICH WAS PAID BY THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH EXPENSIVE AIRWORTHINESS
> DIRECTIVES that have
> > continued to improve reliability, THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CA HIGHWAY
> PATROL CESSNA 206'S NOW FLYING WITH BRAND NEW LYCOMINGS WERE
RECENTLY
> GROUNDED DUE TO FINDING METAL IN THE OIL ON MORE THAN ONE AIRPLANE
> AND IF YOU ASK A&P's WORKING ON THESE ENGINES AND PILOT'S FLYING
THEM
> YOU WILL GET OTHER STORIES fuel economy, etc. FUEL ECONOMY???, LIKE
> WHAT???? Lycoming is currently developing new electronic engine
> controls that are expected to be certified during 2002. GREAT BUT
IT
> WILL BE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST.
> > This has not been an easy thing to do. To become certified you
> must meet many FAA mandated requirements, such as HERF (High Energy
> Radio Frequency), lightening strike protection, redundancy, etc.
> (And also, the FAA has not had experience in certifying electronic
> controls on piston aircraft, so they are also struggling with what
is
> required.) No automobile electronic engine controls have to meet
any
> of these requirements. When they fail, you just pull over to the
> curb. At the same time, all this must be done at a cost that is
> affordable to aircraft owners and operators. THE MODERN ELECTRONIC
> COMPUTERS RUNNING THE ENGINE ARE VERY RELIABLE, LET'S NOT ARGUE THAT
> ONE. JUST LOOK AROUND. ASK ANY SUBARU DEALER IF THEY HAVE ENGINE
> PROBLEMS. THEN ASK IF THEY HAVE ENGINES DYING ALONG THE HIGHWAYS
> WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING. NOW IF IT EVER HAPPENS IT IS DUE TO DRIVING
> THE CAR FOR 100,000 MILES WITHOUT EVER LOOKING UNDER THE HOOD.
> IMAGINE WHAT SOME MAINTENANCE WOULD DO AND IF WE INSTALLED DUAL
> BATTERIES AND A BACKUP FUEL PUMP. AND THEN KEPT THINGS COOLER THAN
> IN THE CAR?
> >
> > The system that was developed for the Toyota engine cost more
> than $10,000 a copy. TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS You need to save a
> lot of fuel burn to pay for such a system. Lycoming is hoping to
make
> its system cost neutral to the non-electronic equipment it is
> replacing. NOT HARD TO DO IF YOU PRICE THEIR CARBURETORS,
MECHANICAL
> INJECTION SYSTEMS, SPARK PLUGS AND MAGNETOS.
> >
> > Lycoming also has a joint development agreement with a major
> technical
> > partner to develop a piston engine that operates on Jet A. This
> engine
> > is on our test stands today, with flight testing scheduled to
> start in 2003 and certification in 2004. The initial engine will be
> 230
> > HP @ 2200 rpm. AND THE PRICE?
> >
> > The one thing that everyone is quick to forget today is that
from
> the
> > late 70s through the mid 90s, there were virtually no piston
> aircraft being built. Cessna was out of production, Piper was in
> bankruptcy and the industry as a whole was producing less than a
> thousand aircraft a year (including business jets). It takes a
great
> deal of money to design, build, test and certify a new engine. (in
> Toyota's case $20 million with a proven engine). When you are
> selling less than 300
> > engines a year, where do you get the millions to invest? What
is
> the pay back? THERE IS NONE, SO WE USE MASS PRODUCED ENGINES AND
RUN
> THEM THE WAY THEY WERE DESIGNED TO RUN, WITH ELECTRONICS PROTECTING
> THE ENGINE.
> > How many aircraft engines do you have to sell to get a return on
> your
> > investment? Even Porsche and Toyota were not willing to make
> that investment and they are much larger companies and have much
more
> R&D money than Lycoming. THAT IS ACTUALLY A DRAWBACK
> > Fortunately today, more aircraft are being built, and this has
> allowed for more investment in new technologies as mentioned above.
> However, you are not seeing a lot of aircraft companies running out
> to certify "new technology" engines in their "new technology"
> aircraft, but choosing to stay with proven technology engines.
(This
> is not to say, that they are not exerting pressure on engine
> manufacturers to develop new technologies.)
> >
> > While we are not throwing stones at any new engine programs out
> there
> > such, as the Subaru EJ25, we do know to date, there has not been
> a successful serial conversion from an automobile engine to an
> aircraft engine, and plenty have tried. THIS IS CHANGING VERY FAST
> For one thing, an automobile engine rarely ever sees Max power
during
> its life and is not designed to do so. THE SUBARU ENGINE IS
> INTERNALLY MUCH STRONGER THAN THE LYCOMING AND OPERATE WITH LESS
> INTERNAL STRESS An aircraft engine sees it on every take off. An
> automobile engine is also not designed to deal with a 20 year life
> cycle that an aircraft engine sees routinely. Lycoming engines have
> proven to provide long, reliable service for 2000 hours and beyond.
> NOBODY EVER MENTIONS THE COST OF PARTS REQUIRED TO REACH THIS TBO #.
> MOST ENGINES NEED TOP OVERHAULS BEFORE GETTING EVEN CLOSE TO THE
2000
> HR. DO A SEARCH ON LYCOMING AD'S AND YOU WILL FIND PAGES OF SERIOUS
> INTERNAL ENGINE PROBLEMS SUCH AS BAD HYDRAULIC LIFTERS, WEEK OIL
> PUMPS AND OIL GALLEYS, WRIST PINS WEARING INTO THE ROCKER COVERS,
> STUCK VALVES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE MAGNETO FAILURES OR SHORT LIFE
> CYCLES, HEAVY STARTERS AND ALTERNATORS, HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION AND ON
> AND ON.
> >
> > Just one thing on service. Lycoming has a World-Wide network of
> > distributors for Lycoming parts. WITH NO PRICE COMPETITION
> Virtually every airport has mechanics
> > who are trained and certified to work on Lycoming engines. Can
> your
> > automobile engine conversion provide the same level of parts,
> service and convenience? VERY BAD EXAMPLE. YES, THERE IS A SUBARU
> DEALER, A SALVAGE YARD OR AUTO PART STORE EVERYWHERE. AUTO
MECHANICS
> ARE AT LEAST OF THE RATIO 1000/1 TO A&P's AND THEY DON'T MIND COMING
> OVER TO THE AIRPORT. THE SUBARU CAN BE WORKED ON BY THE A&P AS
> WELL. THE SUBARU OPERATING SYSTEM IS CLOSE TO THE SAME FOUND ON ANY
> MODERN CAR.
> >
> > We will be more than happy to provide you with the literature
you
> have
> > requested and also ask you to talk to Van's before making a
> decision. (THE DEALER :)
> > They, more than anyone, can tell you the experiences from their
> kits
> > builders with Lycoming engines. AND THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT IS
> CHANGING, SOON 50 OF THEIR AIRPLANE KITS WILL BE FLYING WITH
> SUBARU'S
> >
> > We wish you the best of luck with your RV-7A.
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Paul A. LeFevre
> > Director of Sales & Marketing
> > PAL-01348-em
> > JAN EGGENFELLNER
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 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: "jerry2dat" <jerry2dt@...> Time: Sat Jan 5, 2002 1:11 pm PST Link
--- In RV7and7A@y..., Clifford Dow <cdowjr@y...> wrote:
> BUT JUST HOW MUCH DOES IT COST I ASK?
> As a stockbroker I could not help but calculate what
> the subaru rv owner might spend over a 10 year period
> having to pay $2,200 MORE each year for insurance.
> If the Lycoming RV owner puts the $2,200 he saves each
> year on insurance in the market and earns 10% per year
> (an historical 100 year average return) - after 10
> years he has about $38,566 MORE than the subaru RV
> owner! I'll stick with Lycoming thank you.
> cliff dow jr
> cdowjr@y...
> Maine Rv builder
Cliff...
With all due respect, didn't you forget to factor in the fact that the Subaru conversion is at least
$12,000 less than the Lyc? And then there's the $6-$8 per hour diff in overhaul reserve, and then
there's the at least $8 per hour diff in fuel costs.... If we're going to compare costs and project it out
into the future with a 10% compounded (BTW, as a stockbroker you should know that 10% is not a
risk-free return) payback, then let's use ALL the numbers., and there are more than the above, but it's a
start.
Speaking of numbers, as a former auto shop owner, I believe the heart of an engine is the lower end,
that is the crankshaft and bearing assembly. I take note of the fact that the Lycoming has only 3 main
bearings with two massive rod/piston assemblies between each pair of mains, wheras the Subaru 4 cyl
engines have five fairly massive main bearings, with each pair having to support only one realtively small
piston/rod assembly. For anyone who would care to look at the "innards" of a Subaru, Ross at the SDS
website is building an RV6a with a Subaru 2.2 Turbo, and he has posted lots of info and pix on his site.
The picture of the crank is enlightening. http://www.sdsefi.com/air21.html
I'm personally building an RV6a and planning to use Eggenfellner's Subaru 2.5 FWF package, but have been
observing with interest the debate on this site about conversions. I think it's all healthy discussion, but
a little disappointing when things get personal. One can label another's opinion as "BS", but all that does
is get in the way of honest airing of opinions. We need critical thinking, not insults.
Regards to all,
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, Oregon