Author: eaainc@... Time: Thu Mar 4, 2004 6:14 am PST Link
In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:03:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
The Eggenfellner engine is going to be similar in weight. Its
transmission is about 15 lbs heavier than NSI's and its flywheel is
also about 20 lbs heavier. What is interesting about it though, is that
it is mounted to a large metal plate at the forward end of the engine
and the radiators are up front.
If our reduction drive was in fact 15lb heavier, then the other drive would
only weigh 26 lb. Not much structure can go into such a light drive. Also,
the "Large metal plate" is a lightweight CNC aluminum part weighing only 9lb.
Not much for a part that support the reduction drive, is the entire engine
mounting structure, is a mount for the oil cooler and also mount the radiators.
It is sad to see Mr. Harris in Eggenfellner bashing mode even on this RV forum
:(
Jan Eggenfellner
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "midniteoyl2" <midniteoyl@...> Time: Fri Mar 5, 2004 10:32 am PST Link
Nevermind... I found it.
So, you think LG Harris is Lance? <grinz>
Jim
--- In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, eaainc@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:03:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
> The Eggenfellner engine is going to be similar in weight. Its
> transmission is about 15 lbs heavier than NSI's and its flywheel
is
> also about 20 lbs heavier. What is interesting about it though, is
that
> it is mounted to a large metal plate at the forward end of the
engine
> and the radiators are up front.
> If our reduction drive was in fact 15lb heavier, then the other
drive would
> only weigh 26 lb. Not much structure can go into such a light
drive. Also,
> the "Large metal plate" is a lightweight CNC aluminum part
weighing only 9lb.
> Not much for a part that support the reduction drive, is the
entire engine
> mounting structure, is a mount for the oil cooler and also mount
the radiators.
> It is sad to see Mr. Harris in Eggenfellner bashing mode even on
this RV forum
> :(
>
> Jan Eggenfellner
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: LeGrande Harris <LGHARRIS@...> Time: Fri Mar 5, 2004 11:14 am PST Link
Jan,
The NSI PSRU hanging on the front of my engine weighs 36 lbs. That
includes the starter motor, flywheel and all the mounting hardware,
oil, etc.
Your transmission alone weighs 37 lbs. Your flywheel assembly (with
input shaft, ring gear, bolts, oil ) weighs 20 lbs. Your starter
weighs 5 lbs. and according to you the mounting plate weighs 9 lbs.
That is a total of 71 lbs.
The reasons for the big difference in weight is that NSI uses a single
stage gear set and you use a dual stage spur gear drive that you take
out of a cars transmission. You also use a heavy flywheel and
mounting plate, that NSI doesn't need. Add to that an "extra" 10 lbs
up front for your dual radiators and that makes your system 45 lbs
heavier than either Crossflow or NSI. And unlike Crossflow and NSI,
all that extra weight is up front, away from the planes Center of
Gravity.
What is the total weight of your system, including muffler, prop,
mounts, supercharger, wet, etc?
LG Harris
> From: eaainc@...
> Subject: Re:Eggenfellner design weights
>
> In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:03:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
> The Eggenfellner engine is going to be similar in weight. Its
> transmission is about 15 lbs heavier than NSI's and its flywheel is
> also about 20 lbs heavier. What is interesting about it though, is that
> it is mounted to a large metal plate at the forward end of the engine
> and the radiators are up front.
> If our reduction drive was in fact 15lb heavier, then the other drive
> would
> only weigh 26 lb. Not much structure can go into such a light drive.
> Also,
> the "Large metal plate" is a lightweight CNC aluminum part weighing
> only 9lb.
> Not much for a part that support the reduction drive, is the entire
> engine
> mounting structure, is a mount for the oil cooler and also mount the
> radiators.
> It is sad to see Mr. Harris in Eggenfellner bashing mode even on this
> RV forum
> :(
>
> Jan Eggenfellner
Author: sjhdcl@... Time: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:13 pm PST Link
NSI,
Why don't you start an NSI-list where interested builders can get real
information from you.
Bashing the competition doesn't build experience, it just shows character.
Steve
RV7A
> Jan,
>
> The NSI PSRU hanging on the front of my engine weighs 36 lbs. That
> includes the starter motor, flywheel and all the mounting hardware,
> oil, etc.
>
> Your transmission alone weighs 37 lbs. Your flywheel assembly (with
> input shaft, ring gear, bolts, oil ) weighs 20 lbs. Your starter
> weighs 5 lbs. and according to you the mounting plate weighs 9 lbs.
> That is a total of 71 lbs.
>
> The reasons for the big difference in weight is that NSI uses a single
> stage gear set and you use a dual stage spur gear drive that you take
> out of a cars transmission. You also use a heavy flywheel and
> mounting plate, that NSI doesn't need. Add to that an "extra" 10 lbs
> up front for your dual radiators and that makes your system 45 lbs
> heavier than either Crossflow or NSI. And unlike Crossflow and NSI,
> all that extra weight is up front, away from the planes Center of
> Gravity.
>
> What is the total weight of your system, including muffler, prop,
> mounts, supercharger, wet, etc?
>
> LG Harris
>
>> From: eaainc@...
>> Subject: Re:Eggenfellner design weights
>>
>> In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:03:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>> vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
>> The Eggenfellner engine is going to be similar in weight. Its
>> transmission is about 15 lbs heavier than NSI's and its flywheel is
>> also about 20 lbs heavier. What is interesting about it though, is that
>> it is mounted to a large metal plate at the forward end of the engine
>> and the radiators are up front.
>> If our reduction drive was in fact 15lb heavier, then the other drive
>> would
>> only weigh 26 lb. Not much structure can go into such a light drive.
>> Also,
>> the "Large metal plate" is a lightweight CNC aluminum part weighing
>> only 9lb.
>> Not much for a part that support the reduction drive, is the entire
>> engine
>> mounting structure, is a mount for the oil cooler and also mount the
>> radiators.
>> It is sad to see Mr. Harris in Eggenfellner bashing mode even on this
>> RV forum
>> :(
>>
>> Jan Eggenfellner
> Online help on this group at:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Author: "rv6guy" <rvwannabe@...> Time: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:39 pm PST Link
Steve,
"L.G. Harris" does not own NSI, he is a customer of theirs. I've
never seen NSI, which is run by a fellow named Lance Wheeler, on this
forum. This argument has been going on awhile, I just hit "delete"
when I see it. :)
Chas. Daly
--- In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, sjhdcl@k... wrote:
> NSI,
>
> Why don't you start an NSI-list where interested builders can get
real
> information from you.
>
> Bashing the competition doesn't build experience, it just shows
character.
>
> Steve
> RV7A
Author: "midniteoyl2" <midniteoyl@...> Time: Fri Mar 5, 2004 5:22 pm PST Link
Mr.Harris is NOT NSI... and from I read, he didnt start
this 'weight' thing, just answered a question... It was Jan that was
trolling..
However - from the past posts of both Jan and Lance, I'm not buying
anything from either one.
Jim
<prolly get deleted by the mods...
--- In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, sjhdcl@k... wrote:
> NSI,
>
> Why don't you start an NSI-list where interested builders can get
real
> information from you.
>
> Bashing the competition doesn't build experience, it just shows
character.
>
> Steve
> RV7A
> > Jan,
> >
> > The NSI PSRU hanging on the front of my engine weighs 36 lbs.
That
> > includes the starter motor, flywheel and all the mounting
hardware,
> > oil, etc.
> >
> > Your transmission alone weighs 37 lbs. Your flywheel assembly
(with
> > input shaft, ring gear, bolts, oil ) weighs 20 lbs. Your
starter
> > weighs 5 lbs. and according to you the mounting plate weighs 9
lbs.
> > That is a total of 71 lbs.
> >
> > The reasons for the big difference in weight is that NSI uses a
single
> > stage gear set and you use a dual stage spur gear drive that you
take
> > out of a cars transmission. You also use a heavy flywheel and
> > mounting plate, that NSI doesn't need. Add to that an "extra"
10 lbs
> > up front for your dual radiators and that makes your system 45
lbs
> > heavier than either Crossflow or NSI. And unlike Crossflow and
NSI,
> > all that extra weight is up front, away from the planes Center of
> > Gravity.
> >
> > What is the total weight of your system, including muffler, prop,
> > mounts, supercharger, wet, etc?
> >
> > LG Harris
> >
> >> From: eaainc@a...
> >> Subject: Re:Eggenfellner design weights
> >>
> >> In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:03:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> >> vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
> >> The Eggenfellner engine is going to be similar in weight. Its
> >> transmission is about 15 lbs heavier than NSI's and its
flywheel is
> >> also about 20 lbs heavier. What is interesting about it though,
is that
> >> it is mounted to a large metal plate at the forward end of the
engine
> >> and the radiators are up front.
> >> If our reduction drive was in fact 15lb heavier, then the other
drive
> >> would
> >> only weigh 26 lb. Not much structure can go into such a light
drive.
> >> Also,
> >> the "Large metal plate" is a lightweight CNC aluminum part
weighing
> >> only 9lb.
> >> Not much for a part that support the reduction drive, is the
entire
> >> engine
> >> mounting structure, is a mount for the oil cooler and also
mount the
> >> radiators.
> >> It is sad to see Mr. Harris in Eggenfellner bashing mode even
on this
> >> RV forum
> >> :(
> >>
> >> Jan Eggenfellner
> > Online help on this group at:
> > http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
Author: eaainc@... Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 5:30 am PST Link
In a message dated 3/5/2004 10:53:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
> What is the total weight of your system, including muffler, prop,
> mounts, supercharger, wet, etc?
>
> LG Harris
Well, I know your numbers are fabrications so I wont argue with you. The
starter alone has a weight of 8 lb. I was also wrong in my previous post. You
said that our drive is 15lb heavier than the one you have. Well, then, since
ours weigh 36lb, the one you describe is only 21lb, if 15lb lighter as you
said. Wow, that is a light drive for a 200HP engine. Our propeller hub alone is
3lb to support that kind of HP. I am happy for you if you fond a lightweight
drive but I will stay with alittle more structure to mine.
This is the latest posting to our Subaru yahoo forum by Robert with his 2.5
Supercharged package out in CA:
"One nice thing about the 2.5 motor is the light feel of the
aircraft. Mated with a composite prop, the 2.5 motor combo gives a
you a very nimble plane. It turns quickly with very light control
touch and feels very well balanced. It has low mass as well as low
gyroscopic forces in the front of the plane. Everyone who has flown
my plane remarks how nicely it flies. I think a big part of this is
the motor/prop combo. I have not flown an H6 RV-7, but I can say, a
light motor is good and boost is good (at all altitudes). I don't
think you will be disappointed with the power of the 2.5XT and I
think you will enjoy the light installation.
Robert
RV-7, Supercharged 2.5 Egg, 190 hours"
Jan Eggenfellner
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "David Domeier" <davidd010@...> Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 6:39 am PST Link
Gentlemen,
To add my 2 cents worth to this discussion, I found the 2.5
engine with the Quinti prop to be very satisfactory at low altitude.
Take off performance was impressive in that no more than 500'
of runway was used. The airplane felt like it really wanted to fly
and that coupled with the typical RV control harmony made for a
very a nice flying machine.
My machine ran out of umph above 8000' in speed but not in
climb capability. I had it to 14,500' during flight test and trued out
around 130 knots without the super charger. Those of you who
must fly fast, the super charger will satisfy your needs, although
it is not free. The engine will burn more fuel.
I do not understand all the numbers being posted regarding
weight. What I do understand is the weight and balance of my
machine. I don't have the exact numbers with me at this time but
the machine came in around 1100 lbs (with paint) and the CG
was right in the middle of the envelope. In day to day flying,
there was no limiting CG issue but there was a gross weight
issue with full fuel and full bag weight and 2 200 lb people. This
is probably true of all RV's.
dd
RV-7
H6
Author: "jacklucas6" <jacklucas6@...> Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 2:28 pm PST Link
David,
Thanks for the pirep, I'm interested in a Subaru, but don't
understand fully what you're saying here. When you said "130 kts.",
did you mean that was top speed at 14,500, or cruise speed, or?
These planes should go 130 on 110 hp I think, so is that all your
engine is putting out?
There seems to be some confusion as to the hp of these engines, at
least the non-supercharged 2.5. What kind of speed did you see down
lower at cruise, and what did you use for MAP and RPM? What fuel flow
did you see at 130kts.?
Thanks,
Jack L.
--- In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, "David Domeier" <davidd010@e...>
wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> To add my 2 cents worth to this discussion, I found the 2.5
> engine with the Quinti prop to be very satisfactory at low
altitude.
> Take off performance was impressive in that no more than 500'
> of runway was used. The airplane felt like it really wanted to fly
> and that coupled with the typical RV control harmony made for a
> very a nice flying machine.
>
> My machine ran out of umph above 8000' in speed but not in
> climb capability. I had it to 14,500' during flight test and trued
out
> around 130 knots without the super charger. Those of you who
> must fly fast, the super charger will satisfy your needs, although
> it is not free. The engine will burn more fuel.
>
> I do not understand all the numbers being posted regarding
> weight. What I do understand is the weight and balance of my
> machine. I don't have the exact numbers with me at this time but
> the machine came in around 1100 lbs (with paint) and the CG
> was right in the middle of the envelope. In day to day flying,
> there was no limiting CG issue but there was a gross weight
> issue with full fuel and full bag weight and 2 200 lb people.
This
> is probably true of all RV's.
>
> dd
> RV-7
> H6
Author: LeGrande Harris <LGHARRIS@...> Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 2:28 pm PST Link
Jan,
What is so hard about providing a complete system weight?
The NSI package, complete with cockpit adjustable prop, spinner,
muffler, mounts, wet, basically everything FWF, running weighs 383 lbs.
Crossflow, sans prop, claims that their FWF package weighs 360 lbs.
I think how much the engine package weighs is important. Is there a
reason (other than your system is heavy) that you won't provide the
weight?
LG Harris
>> What is the total weight of your system, including muffler, prop,
>> mounts, supercharger, wet, etc?
>>
>> LG Harris
> Well, I know your numbers are fabrications so I wont argue with you.
> The
> starter alone has a weight of 8 lb. I was also wrong in my previous
> post. You
> said that our drive is 15lb heavier than the one you have. Well,
> then, since
> ours weigh 36lb, the one you describe is only 21lb, if 15lb lighter as
> you
> said. Wow, that is a light drive for a 200HP engine. Our propeller
> hub alone is
> 3lb to support that kind of HP. I am happy for you if you fond a
> lightweight
> drive but I will stay with alittle more structure to mine.
>
> This is the latest posting to our Subaru yahoo forum by Robert with
> his 2.5
> Supercharged package out in CA:
>
> "One nice thing about the 2.5 motor is the light feel of the
> aircraft. Mated with a composite prop, the 2.5 motor combo gives a
> you a very nimble plane. It turns quickly with very light control
> touch and feels very well balanced. It has low mass as well as low
> gyroscopic forces in the front of the plane. Everyone who has flown
> my plane remarks how nicely it flies. I think a big part of this is
> the motor/prop combo. I have not flown an H6 RV-7, but I can say, a
> light motor is good and boost is good (at all altitudes). I don't
> think you will be disappointed with the power of the 2.5XT and I
> think you will enjoy the light installation.
> Robert
> RV-7, Supercharged 2.5 Egg, 190 hours"
> Jan Eggenfellner
Author: "Ross P. Hauck" <ross@...> Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 3:55 pm PST Link
I'm getting 160 kts ground speed at 14.5, 3900 rpm and 29.5" map. Wide
open is right at 175 kts. I haven't had a chance to do a low-altitude
speed run, since we're at 5600' here in CO. I had a successful cell
phone conversation in cruise with no headset. It's smooth and quiet!
Ross/N2SU RV-7A Eggenfellner supercharged Subaru 56 hrs.
-----Original Message-----
From: jacklucas6 [mailto:jacklucas6@...]
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:09 PM
To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [VAF Mailing List] Eggenfellner design weights
David,
Thanks for the pirep, I'm interested in a Subaru, but don't
understand fully what you're saying here. When you said "130 kts.",
did you mean that was top speed at 14,500, or cruise speed, or?
These planes should go 130 on 110 hp I think, so is that all your
engine is putting out?
There seems to be some confusion as to the hp of these engines, at
least the non-supercharged 2.5. What kind of speed did you see down
lower at cruise, and what did you use for MAP and RPM? What fuel flow
did you see at 130kts.?
Thanks,
Jack L.
--- In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, "David Domeier" <davidd010@e...>
wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> To add my 2 cents worth to this discussion, I found the 2.5
> engine with the Quinti prop to be very satisfactory at low
altitude.
> Take off performance was impressive in that no more than 500'
> of runway was used. The airplane felt like it really wanted to fly
> and that coupled with the typical RV control harmony made for a
> very a nice flying machine.
>
> My machine ran out of umph above 8000' in speed but not in
> climb capability. I had it to 14,500' during flight test and trued
out
> around 130 knots without the super charger. Those of you who
> must fly fast, the super charger will satisfy your needs, although
> it is not free. The engine will burn more fuel.
>
> I do not understand all the numbers being posted regarding
> weight. What I do understand is the weight and balance of my
> machine. I don't have the exact numbers with me at this time but
> the machine came in around 1100 lbs (with paint) and the CG
> was right in the middle of the envelope. In day to day flying,
> there was no limiting CG issue but there was a gross weight
> issue with full fuel and full bag weight and 2 200 lb people.
This
> is probably true of all RV's.
>
> dd
> RV-7
> H6
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "David Domeier" <davidd010@...> Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 9:56 pm PST Link
> David,
Thanks for the pirep, I'm interested in a Subaru, but don't
understand fully what you're saying here. When you said "130
kts.", did you mean that was top speed at 14,500, or cruise
speed, or?
Jack,
The normal aspirated 2.5 developes about 120 HP (75%) at
8500' . At 10,500' it is about 104 HP. At 14,500 I am guessing it
developes about 80-90 HP. There is no "cruise" power setting
up there, its full throttle (16"MP) and the rpm probably was
around 4400, I don't remember exactly. So figure 130 knots on
90 HP, I think that is in the ball park. Fuel burn 6 gph.
Flying to OSH last summer, I was at 8500', running at 65%
power (my personal cruise limit) and the TAS was 142 knots.
Fuel burn was 8 - 8.5 gph.
At sea level, full throttle, I saw 152 knots (176 mph).
My airplane never had intersection fairings installed so it should
have gone faster. I had a ride in Jan's 6A at OSH and it showed
186 mph at 1000'.
Sorry for the confusion.
I like EASubaru because the engine is smooth, developes
enough power for me, sounds cool, runs on mogas, starts
quickly, has a good cabin heater, and is backed with excellent
service.
dd
RV-7
H4
(switching to H6 with FP wood prop)
Author: "Jeffrey Hall" <jhallrv4@...> Time: Sat Mar 6, 2004 9:56 pm PST Link
"I'm getting 160 kts ground speed at 14.5, 3900 rpm and 29.5" map. Wide
open is right at 175 kts. "
What was the wind? TAS would be much more meaningful. We some serious wind in Colorado today!
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "stevegordon2003" <stevegordon2003@...> Time: Mon Mar 8, 2004 3:22 am PST Link
Jan,
Don't you require the stock heavy flywheel as part of your drive? 28 lb + 36 lb
= 64 lb? OR depending on flywheel 19 + 36 = 55 lb? Some people consider
the flywheel as part of the wt. Others such as yourself appear to leave it out.
I think NSI uses an aluminum flywheel???
Good reason to compare firewall forward total wts.
--- In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, eaainc@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/2004 10:53:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> vansairforce@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> > What is the total weight of your system, including muffler, prop,
> > mounts, supercharger, wet, etc?
> >
> > LG Harris
> Well, I know your numbers are fabrications so I wont argue with you. The
> starter alone has a weight of 8 lb. I was also wrong in my previous post.
You
> said that our drive is 15lb heavier than the one you have. Well, then, since
> ours weigh 36lb, the one you describe is only 21lb, if 15lb lighter as you
> said. Wow, that is a light drive for a 200HP engine. Our propeller hub alone
is
> 3lb to support that kind of HP. I am happy for you if you fond a lightweight
> drive but I will stay with alittle more structure to mine.
>
> This is the latest posting to our Subaru yahoo forum by Robert with his 2.5
> Supercharged package out in CA:
>
> "One nice thing about the 2.5 motor is the light feel of the
> aircraft. Mated with a composite prop, the 2.5 motor combo gives a
> you a very nimble plane. It turns quickly with very light control
> touch and feels very well balanced. It has low mass as well as low
> gyroscopic forces in the front of the plane. Everyone who has flown
> my plane remarks how nicely it flies. I think a big part of this is
> the motor/prop combo. I have not flown an H6 RV-7, but I can say, a
> light motor is good and boost is good (at all altitudes). I don't
> think you will be disappointed with the power of the 2.5XT and I
> think you will enjoy the light installation.
> Robert
> RV-7, Supercharged 2.5 Egg, 190 hours"
> Jan Eggenfellner
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]