Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011222074757.009d1490@pop3.olsusa.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 07:49:46 -0500
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>
Subject: EngineAir
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Posted for "Douglas Pohl" <dpohl@cdh.net>

Dear Readers,

I am posting this for Al Joniec because he is not a member and therefore
does not have access to the site.

----- Original Message -----
From: Engineairps@aol.com
To: dpohl@cdh.net
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:42 AM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: lancair.list V1 #265

My comments to your question are in (blue).
Al Joniec


EngineAir issues
 >
 > Dear Doug and Al.
 >
 > I agree that this forum is a good place for information.  To that end I
would like to ask you two a few questions that your e-mail has raised in my
mind.
 >
 > I want to be very clear.  I have no ax to grind, I have not spent one
dollar with EngineAir or the previous companies.  I want safe and reliable
experimental
 > planes flying.  If EngineAir can do this, great.
 >
 > Please, let us deal in "real facts" as you state in  your e-mail.  Thank
you for stating that what I said in my post was correct.
 >
 > Before I start could you, Doug or Al tell me if Doug Pohl is a customer or
an employee?

(Doug is an investor and a customer, not an employee).

You state in paragraph Two that EPS takes safety and
reliability seriously.  You go further to say that the company is not happy
with reliability.

(That's true, as no one can never make anything absolutely perfect --- we
try to approach it as "continuance improvement."  However, you have to start
somewhere and have a base line to measure against and get the feedback from
actual experience in field.  I believe this to be a standard practice).

You then state that we engaged the services of a noted
consultant.  That is great but you state in paragraph 4 that you are a
customer.  Which is the "real truth"?  There is little credibility if you
speak from both a customer and an employee point of view.

(As stated, Doug Pohl is an investor, not an employee.  He has generously
offered hundreds of hours of his time with no compensation).

 > In paragraph 2 and 3 you state that EngineAir sold beta Engine and Gearbox
systems to customers.

(That's correct.  We made no secret of what we had and what we were doing.
We had orders from people that know that they were going to be the first and
that it was an experimental engine built by Jim & Al).

You also stated that that was the Achilles heel of Jim
Rahm's.

(The "Achilles heel", was from not being able to get them (gearboxes), not
from them being defective.  The first gearbox had in fact worked sucessfully
for around 650 hours prior to the first production unit being done and us
replacing it.  We replaced it because, again we wanted to test it prior to
sending out more production units to customers).

  Question:  Why did you sell known defective gearboxes to a customer?

(We did no such thing.  Where do you get the idea that there was a defective
gearbox?  The only other gearbox was on loaned as a prototype to be returned
to EPS and have documented proof of that).

  Note:  I am in high tech and if we ship beta units to a customer to get
their input we immediately replace that beta unit with a production unit.
We never
  even charge for beta systems because they are not production units.
 >
 > Question:   If you repaired the gearboxes and engines  why did you not
immediately replace the beta engine and gearbox with a production unit?

(First, we don't know that there is a problem of any kind as the gearbox has
been sucessfully working all of this time.  We would exhange a defective
unit, but as we are currently starting full production of the gearbox
assemblies  - none were readily available and there were financial matters
that I won't get into.  Remember, the only one we had (a prototype) was
loaned.....it was never paid for).

If you have a customer flying with known defective parts in his plane you
should fix it!  But that is just me talking.

(Again, not true, as outlined above).

 > Note 2:  Dr. "nice guy" did not put Jim Rahm in bankruptcy, he did that
all by himself.  The Dr. paid for an engine from the company that Jim and Al
started and did not get "squat".  I know of a few other customers that did
not get their engines or gearboxes after paying full price plus more in some
cases.  But I guess that is their problem.

(He (Dr. "nice guy") has been offered an entire engine assembly by both the
old company and the new company. Yet he opted to drive Jim into bankruptcy
out of spite).

 > You state that you and Tom Hakes are flying customers.  I think that you
had a complete engine failure on the way to Oshkosh and I have not heard
about
Tom making his first flight.  As far as I know the only plane in the world
flying with your engine Today is Jim Rahm.

 >  Question: Is that true or false?

(Doug did not in fact have an complete engine failure, and his engine is in
fact, running in his plane.   Tom is absolutely ready to fly, and Doug
rightfully assumed that he would be flying by now, but he did not do so
yet ---- but should be flying any time now).

 > You state in paragraph 4 that Five other people will be flying in January.
I know of at least one of the people that you named does not even have his
engine or gearbox as of your posting.  Truth is important as it directly
affects
my perception of your credibility.
 >
 > Question:  How many of the Four customers that you named have possession
of their COMPLETE engine and gearbox as of Today?

(We now have the capacity to test the entire engine & gearbox assembly as a
completely integrated system.  This is the complete and entire firewall
forward package with components like electronics, radiators, intercoolers,
pressure controller, etc., on the actual engine mount that will be used in
the plane.  We know of no one else doing this and have all of the four
customer's assemblies in-house.  When done this way, the customer just has
to bolt the entire assembly to their firewall and hook up the wires to get
it running on their plane.  As you know, there are other areas that still
have to done, but this is as near a turn-key approach as we know of and it
safely tests everything as a unit, is very convenient, saves the builder
hundreds of hours and is why we are offering more than just an engine.  So
as the result of the above, we feel that the goal of having these planes
flying by Sun N Fun is not unreasonable).

 > You state that you can fly 5 hours on full tanks and that you have only
changed oil in 25 hours of flying.
 > Question:  How many hours were on your plane when you had the engine
failure and subsequent crash?  Reliability is important to me.

(First, Doug would not call it a "crash."  It was in fact a gear-up landing
with only minimal damage to the plane.  The only reason he is not flying now
is that he elected to open his wings and add the extended fuel option that
was not available 8 years ago when he built those wings.  I believe there
was about 45 hours on his plane and again, there was no engine failure.  You
can read the FAA report on the accident).
 >
 > Al,  you asked me to come to your facility to see what you are doing now
and as you know I have agreed.  If you are addressing the issues I am
concerned with I will Applaud you.

(Thank you for being open minded).

 > Question:  Why don't you do everything possible to get the customers with
beta systems up to your current standards?

(I believe I answered this question above).

 > Last but not least:  You state that Jim Rahm's plane has 800 hours of
flying time. Question:  How many engine and gearboxes have been in Jim's
plane?  You are being very misleading when you talk about 800 hours on your
R&D plane.  Shows me that the plane is great but I still have concerns about
your product.

(As I stated in my original email to you, we did not, nor ever imply that
this was the original engine and gearbox in the plane.  However, I can
understand how that could happen.  We had 3 configuration engines that we
tested in Jim's plane, that's why it's a development plane.  And one of them
did not work as well as planned.  However, we had the first engine in it for
over 480 hours and it was absolutely perfect before we went to our current
engine configuration.  This engine configuration is the current one that we
now have and it needed to be tested prior to selling it to our customers.
Again, we will continue to strive to improve our engine, we will always do
so and we will again test it before we announce it being available for sale.
Remember this is experimental, and is not encumbered as a certified engine
would be).

 > If you are not going to answer my questions than taking a trip to your
facility would be useless.  I hope that you Two will respond to each
question so we can, as Doug put it, Get the real truth!!!

(That is the goal).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>