Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 10:21:40 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1581718@logan.com>
From: "Douglas Pohl" <dpohl@cdh.net>
Subject: Response to Jack Kane
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Once again I find myself totally surprised by a posting by Jack Kane
concerning his gearbox in use on the EngineAir V-8 engine.  This posting
occurred without any prior discussion with anyone at Engine Power Systems
LLC and without any knowledge of the company's actions concerning the issues
raised in the e-mail.  I can only firmly remind Jack that whatever is
written by a party in a public forum better be substantiated by that party.
Further, any damages caused by such postings will leave you FULLY liable for
those damages.  I believe I have put you on notice.  As for the truth:

1. Jack, you are the designer of the gearbox and fully responsible for the
design.  If you have any concerns about YOUR design, you should communicate
them to the individuals using the gearbox, not in a public forum like the
Lancair Mailing List.  For the record, I last spoke to you more than four
weeks ago.  Is your phone broken?  Obviously, you picked up the new issue of
Sport Aviation, read the article, and for your own reasons were off to the
races on your keyboard.

2. While professing to Engine Power Systems and the prior company EngineAir
that Tom Zedaker's gearbox was a prototype and not anything like the current
Mark-9 PSRU (I have in my files the e-mails from you that state as much, as
well as postings from your website), you now state "that claim is patently
false."  Well Jack, you told me that the Zedaker gearbox was "sloppy" with
"poor tolerances in the gears" that required shims in the thrust bearings to
take up the slop.  You were so concerned about this gearbox that you wanted
to tear it down for inspections every 100 hours.  From the descriptions I
have heard of Tom Zedaker's gearbox, the wear that was described is
completely consistent with a gearbox with poor thrust bearing and gear
tolerances.  You did personally build this gearbox, didn't you Jack?  Let's
be honest Jack, the Zedaker gearbox was a prototype and was never designed
to fly as long as it did.  PERIOD.

3. Jack, while you assert that the first fifteen gearbox units supplied to
Engine Power Systems were built by EPI (you, true) and that all other
structural and functional parts in the gearbox are identical (partially
true), you go on to state that the aerospace vendors that are building the
gears (Perry Gear) and castings (Unexcelled Castings) for subsequent
gearboxes (the same companies that produce parts for the major aerospace
companies), are building parts of "significantly lower quality than those
supplied by EPI."  That is an interesting comment since you never supplied
any documentation for your parts (x-ray analysis etc) like the new vendors
have, nor did you make improvements in the parts like the new vendors have
without holding out your hand for more money.  Let's be honest Jack, your
first fifteen gearbox castings leaked like a sieve and we have been required
to seal these casings to make them dry.  In one area, there was too little
material on the casting necessitating custom changes.  Unexcelled has
modified the production process to eliminate these problems and you have
stated on several occasions in the past, after personal inspection of those
castings in New York, how beautiful they are.  Perhaps I should pass your
e-mail on to Unexcelled and Perry Gear so that they too may become aware of
your assertions concerning their work.  How many parts have you manufactured
for Boeing, Pratt and Whitney, etc Jack?  I'm sorry, the new non-EPI
gearboxes are going to be BETTER than yours.

4. Jack, you well know that we have been talking about this quill shaft
issue ever since Tom Zedaker's broke on his plane.  Just to remind you, and
everyone else, I sustained a prop strike during my emergency landing last
year and the quill shaft did not break.  I assume a prop strike represents a
significant load on the quill shaft and yet it did not break.  You
personally inspected the gearbox and quill shaft following the accident, and
according to your e-mail, the quill shaft was in perfect shape, and the
gearbox showed no evidence of damage, or any wear.  Nevertheless, we at EPS
are smart people and we listen to the engineers.  See below.

5. For once, Rick Schrameck and I are in full agreement.  You need to take
responsibility for your design Jack.  When Chrysler, Ford or GM screw up on
something, they issue a recall and institute the repair at THEIR expense.
Your belief that you can place a posting on the web, declare YOUR product
unairworthy, and then suggest that all parties should come to you with money
in hand for the fix borders on extortion and raises a number of tort issues
(according to my many lawyer friends) that fall outside the realm of
experimental aviation.  You better go speak to your lawyer Jack before you
place any such public postings in the future.

6. As for the issue of the gearbox itself, Jim Rahm has been flying with a
production gearbox for more than three years and 800 hours with no failure
EXCEPT for Jack's oil seal design that resulted in all of Jim's engine oil
being ported overboard.  Thanks Jack.  WE (Engine Power Systems) put in a
retention design for the seal to retain the seal, prevent it from spinning,
thus effecting a permanent solution to the problem.  I now have 100 hours on
my gearbox with no problems and no metal detected to indicate any wear.

The new quill shaft design alluded to by Jack HAS been produced by our
aerospace vendor and will be installed in ALL of the gearboxes that our
customers are using.  What's the matter Jack, didn't know we were listening
to you?  Maybe you should call us and ask.  Our aerospace vendors, with
their vast engineering knowledge, are constantly providing us with
additional information to further enhance the quality and performance of the
gearbox.  Following discussions with several oil scientists, we are also
changing our oil formulation to further reduce any gear wear.

Jack, whether you like it or not, Al Joniec has truly brought a
revolutionary engine design to the market and time and the many new
customers who are entering the air with this engine package, not you, will
prove that.  Engine Power Systems is one of the few companies in aviation
that has had to air all of its laundry publicly when e-mails such as yours
appear in public forums.  And we don't mind doing it.  While Continental
makes its customers sign secrecy agreements before they will fix one of
their engines when it goes south, EPS has consistently explained itself when
asked.  The EngineAir V-8 is a good product, now past its development stage,
that will prove reliable, economical and SAFE.  New enhancements are
constantly being added to the package.  This is truly an evolutionary
advance in aircraft engine design.  Only someone who has flown one can
appreciate that.  Jack, you haven't taken the time to experience the engine
so you are ill equipped to comment on it.

Finally Jack, you're not the only engineer on earth and you certainly don't
have all the answers.  It's time for you to move on and find some other
customer to drain of cash.

I'm sorry for the terse tone of this e-mail but under the circumstances, it
needed to be said.

See you all at Oshosh.

Doug Pohl