|
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<< Lancair Builders' Mail List >>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Posted for "Douglas Pohl" <dpohl@cdh.net>:
This forum is a great device for builders to share information among themselves. However, a recurring deficiency is the ability of anyone to post anything they want, potentially causing harm individually or to companies that have worked hard to bring new technologies to market. Witness yesterday a posting asserting that the EngineAir engine was of "shoddy" workmanship, that the customers "haven't gotten squat" and that "I would not purchase one of these engines." Such postings reflect old outdated information provided by individuals in the West Coast area who have an axe to grind against the EngineAir Company. What are the real facts?
For the record, the writer was correct that the early beta versions of the engine had problems, including the problems described in the posting. However, these problems were identified years ago and the engines being shipped to customers today have incorporated many enhancements, as is typical in engine development, to correct these deficiencies. Engine Power Systems takes safety and reliability seriously and has worked hard to identify problems in the design and install fixes for those problems. At this point in time, I believe the engine is as reliable as others currently sold in the aviation market, including Continentals and Lycomings. However, the company is not happy with reliability at that level and we have recently engaged the services of an aerospace engineer with years of experience within the FAA to review the design as an outsider and suggest additional enhancements that will be added as necessary to the engine package. This consultant, during his visit to the Aiken engine facility on Tuesday, was amazed at the technology that had been developed when a company like Lycoming or Continental would have spent ten million dollars to arrive at the same stage of development.
As far as the gearbox, this was the Achilles heel of the former Engine Air LLC and Engine Power Systems LLC as well. The expenses involved in developing this part of the package consumed Jim Rahm's entire fortune, forcing him into recent bankruptcy. As the author of the posting noted, a disgruntled customer of Jim's filed suit against him personally, hastening his bankruptcy. What a nice guy! Fortunately for the aviation community, the engine customer group continued the development initiative, including gearbox development, and gearboxes are now being assembled and shipped. The gearbox design was created by an aerospace engineer with extensive lifetime experience with gearboxes. The design is nothing new, sharing many similarities with gearboxes produced by Continental and Lycoming. Parts for the gearboxes are now being produced by aerospace companies to Mil Spec and we predict that these gearboxes will meet or exceed the life noted in gearboxes now sitting on Continental or Lycoming engines.
As for customers who didn't get squat, well I'm one of those customers with a working, flying engine. So too is Tom Hakes. By the end of January, there will be at least five others including Gary Wolf, Marvin May, George Knapple etc. Call them and talk to them directly.
While I am not requesting an apology from the author of the posting, I would request that he, and others who participate in this forum, research their facts before placing postings that could potentially harm and defame companies that have worked hard to bring truly new technologies to the aviation market. Think before you write.
Since the author raised the issue of his turbine installation, I applaud him for his desire to use a third world country's technology in his engine, but I also caution him that not all Walters are the same and the same level of concern that was expressed toward the EngineAir engine should also be carried forward to any other engine attached to a new airframe design. Be careful.
Similarly, for those of you excited about a Walter, I can only say that I prefer the EngineAir V-8. I can fly for five hours with full tanks. I can carry full fuel and four passengers. I burn 18 gallons an hour at cruise and 240 knots. If I want to slow down to 180 knots, I can reduce my burn to 12 gallons per hour. Oh, by the way, I'm burning 93 octane auto gas at $1.20 a gallon versus $2.50 a gallon for AvGas or Jet-A. My quick calculations indicate that with each fill, I save $100 in fuel costs, in addition to burning up to 25% less fuel than a Continental or Lycoming. Other than changing my oil once every 25 hours, this engine requires NO maintainance. Al Joniec, the designer of the engine, is contemplating a change in computers with dual plugs to permit burning 87 octane auto gas. I still believe this engine represents a major advance in aviation technology.
Merry Christmas and other Season's Greetings to all you guys,
Doug Pohl
LML website: http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore
assist with the management of the LML.
Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
|
|