Author: "Bill Heard" <iamheard@...> Time: Wed Dec 19, 2001 7:49 pm PST Link
Hello,
I have been reading the e-mails debating Lycoming vs. Subaru and felt it was
time to throw my two cents in. Before I make my statement let me say that I
used to be an NIASE certified mechanic with one certification short of being
a master mechanic and that missing certification was automatic
transmissions. I have completely rebuilt Volkswagen, Audi, MG, Austin
Healey, Triumph and Honda engines so I feel I know a little about what I am
about to say.
Jan's Subaru engine conversion is a very well thought out, good looking and
professionally executed project. I commend Jan on his perserverance and
foresight throughout the development of the Subaru package. I have no doubt
that his conversion will provide many pilots with years of pleasurable
flying. However, there are several items I have considered in making my
powerplant decision that I thought might be helpful for those of you that
are sitting on the fence.
1. The best way to achieve large amounts of reliable horsepower is through
large displacement engines. Lycoming's O-320 produces 160 HP at 2700 RPM
vs. Jan's Subaru 2.5L producing 165 HP at 5700 RPM. The O-320 has 320 cubic
inches of displacement vs. the Subaru 2.5L's 152 cubic inches. The Subaru
is squeezing the same amount of horsepower out of an engine less that half
the displacement of the Lycoming. When you try to get more horsepower out
of a smaller engine the reliability is reduced. This has been proven again
and again in all forms of motorsports including air racing.
2. The Lycoming achieves full power and cruise power at RPM levels that are
half of what the Subaru uses. With the higher RPM levels wear and tear is
increased. To put things in perspective, start your car, put it in first
(or low) gear and drive it for 3.5 to 4 hours at 4200 RPM (it is only going
to take a few seconds to become uncomfortable with the way the engine
sounds). Maybe go to a Subaru dealer and demo a car with a similar engine in
the above manner. This would be similar to what the Subaru is doing on a
cross country flight. If that does not cause you a little concern then the
Subaru conversion may be right for you.
3. Air-cooled (Lycoming) engines pose fewer potential problems than
liquid-cooled (Subaru) engines. On air-cooled engines, there are no
radiators or coolant hoses to check, maintain, repair or fail. There are no
water pumps to fail. There is absolutely no danger of oil and coolant
mixing together because a head gasket deteriorated between the respective
lubricating and cooling passages. I have completely rebuilt air-cooled and
liquid-cooled engines and the air-cooled engines are less complex and
present fewer opportunities for fluid leaks or assembly mistakes.
It may seem like I am knocking Jan's conversion, but I am not. Again, I
think his conversion is the most professional, well thought out package I
have seen. The Lycoming may be old technology but it is proven, reliable
technology. It sickens me to read e-mail condemning Lycoming because of
some mechanical failures, and soley because of those failures a person
should choose the Subaru. We are dealing with man-made objects and all
man-made objects are subject to failure. When the Subaru conversion numbers
flying approach the numbers of the Lycoming I would be willing to bet the
percent of mechanical failures for each will be relatively close. One of
the major advantages for me in building my own plane is that I can perform
all maintenance and repairs on that plane if I choose. And because of my
capabilities I am going to perform all of the engine work. The Lycoming
will be the easiest to maintain, repair and rebuild. At least that is what
my fourteen years in the auto industry tells me.
Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this group. I know when I
start my 7A in the spring my mistakes will be fewer as a result of all of
the e-mails. And I also know my 7A will have a Lycoming on its nose.
Everybody have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Respectfully,
Bill
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Wed Dec 19, 2001 7:59 pm PST Link
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your intelligent and well-balanced post on Lycoming vs.
Subaru conversion. Later in your reply, however, you say you'd bet
that given similar numbers of each flying you think there will be
similar failure rates.
Doesn't that contradict your basic points above that about how the
Subaru operates at higher RPM (which increases failure odds) and has
various extra components (which also increase failure odds)?
Thanks
GC
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Bill Heard" <iamheard@h...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been reading the e-mails debating Lycoming vs. Subaru and
felt it was
> time to throw my two cents in. Before I make my statement let me
say that I
> used to be an NIASE certified mechanic with one certification short
of being
> a master mechanic and that missing certification was automatic
> transmissions. I have completely rebuilt Volkswagen, Audi, MG,
Austin
> Healey, Triumph and Honda engines so I feel I know a little about
what I am
> about to say.
>
> Jan's Subaru engine conversion is a very well thought out, good
looking and
> professionally executed project. I commend Jan on his
perserverance and
> foresight throughout the development of the Subaru package. I have
no doubt
> that his conversion will provide many pilots with years of
pleasurable
> flying. However, there are several items I have considered in
making my
> powerplant decision that I thought might be helpful for those of
you that
> are sitting on the fence.
>
> 1. The best way to achieve large amounts of reliable horsepower is
through
> large displacement engines. Lycoming's O-320 produces 160 HP at
2700 RPM
> vs. Jan's Subaru 2.5L producing 165 HP at 5700 RPM. The O-320 has
320 cubic
> inches of displacement vs. the Subaru 2.5L's 152 cubic inches. The
Subaru
> is squeezing the same amount of horsepower out of an engine less
that half
> the displacement of the Lycoming. When you try to get more
horsepower out
> of a smaller engine the reliability is reduced. This has been
proven again
> and again in all forms of motorsports including air racing.
> 2. The Lycoming achieves full power and cruise power at RPM levels
that are
> half of what the Subaru uses. With the higher RPM levels wear and
tear is
> increased. To put things in perspective, start your car, put it in
first
> (or low) gear and drive it for 3.5 to 4 hours at 4200 RPM (it is
only going
> to take a few seconds to become uncomfortable with the way the
engine
> sounds). Maybe go to a Subaru dealer and demo a car with a similar
engine in
> the above manner. This would be similar to what the Subaru is
doing on a
> cross country flight. If that does not cause you a little concern
then the
> Subaru conversion may be right for you.
> 3. Air-cooled (Lycoming) engines pose fewer potential problems
than
> liquid-cooled (Subaru) engines. On air-cooled engines, there are
no
> radiators or coolant hoses to check, maintain, repair or fail.
There are no
> water pumps to fail. There is absolutely no danger of oil and
coolant
> mixing together because a head gasket deteriorated between the
respective
> lubricating and cooling passages. I have completely rebuilt air-
cooled and
> liquid-cooled engines and the air-cooled engines are less complex
and
> present fewer opportunities for fluid leaks or assembly mistakes.
>
> It may seem like I am knocking Jan's conversion, but I am not.
Again, I
> think his conversion is the most professional, well thought out
package I
> have seen. The Lycoming may be old technology but it is proven,
reliable
> technology. It sickens me to read e-mail condemning Lycoming
because of
> some mechanical failures, and soley because of those failures a
person
> should choose the Subaru. We are dealing with man-made objects and
all
> man-made objects are subject to failure. When the Subaru
conversion numbers
> flying approach the numbers of the Lycoming I would be willing to
bet the
> percent of mechanical failures for each will be relatively close.
One of
> the major advantages for me in building my own plane is that I can
perform
> all maintenance and repairs on that plane if I choose. And because
of my
> capabilities I am going to perform all of the engine work. The
Lycoming
> will be the easiest to maintain, repair and rebuild. At least that
is what
> my fourteen years in the auto industry tells me.
>
> Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this group. I know
when I
> start my 7A in the spring my mistakes will be fewer as a result of
all of
> the e-mails. And I also know my 7A will have a Lycoming on its
nose.
> Everybody have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
>
> Respectfully,
> Bill
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com
Author: "Bill Heard" <iamheard@...> Time: Wed Dec 19, 2001 8:08 pm PST Link
Hello GC,
People seem to be making the decision to go with the Subaru because of
stories they have read about Lycoming engine failures. The point I was
trying to make is that until there are similar numbers of Subaru engines in
service we won't know what the failure rate is but if the Subaru gets
anywhere near Lycoming numbers there will be a percentage of mechanical
failures. Based on my earlier e-mail, speculation says the failure rate
would be higher for the Subaru but I thought that might be a little
foreboding. Thanks for the reply and comment.
Bill
>From: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@y...>
>Reply-To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
>To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Engines
>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:59:03 -0000
>
>Hi Bill,
>Thanks for your intelligent and well-balanced post on Lycoming vs.
>Subaru conversion. Later in your reply, however, you say you'd bet
>that given similar numbers of each flying you think there will be
>similar failure rates.
>
>Doesn't that contradict your basic points above that about how the
>Subaru operates at higher RPM (which increases failure odds) and has
>various extra components (which also increase failure odds)?
>
>Thanks
>GC
>
>--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Bill Heard" <iamheard@h...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have been reading the e-mails debating Lycoming vs. Subaru and
>felt it was
> > time to throw my two cents in. Before I make my statement let me
>say that I
> > used to be an NIASE certified mechanic with one certification short
>of being
> > a master mechanic and that missing certification was automatic
> > transmissions. I have completely rebuilt Volkswagen, Audi, MG,
>Austin
> > Healey, Triumph and Honda engines so I feel I know a little about
>what I am
> > about to say.
> >
> > Jan's Subaru engine conversion is a very well thought out, good
>looking and
> > professionally executed project. I commend Jan on his
>perserverance and
> > foresight throughout the development of the Subaru package. I have
>no doubt
> > that his conversion will provide many pilots with years of
>pleasurable
> > flying. However, there are several items I have considered in
>making my
> > powerplant decision that I thought might be helpful for those of
>you that
> > are sitting on the fence.
> >
> > 1. The best way to achieve large amounts of reliable horsepower is
>through
> > large displacement engines. Lycoming's O-320 produces 160 HP at
>2700 RPM
> > vs. Jan's Subaru 2.5L producing 165 HP at 5700 RPM. The O-320 has
>320 cubic
> > inches of displacement vs. the Subaru 2.5L's 152 cubic inches. The
>Subaru
> > is squeezing the same amount of horsepower out of an engine less
>that half
> > the displacement of the Lycoming. When you try to get more
>horsepower out
> > of a smaller engine the reliability is reduced. This has been
>proven again
> > and again in all forms of motorsports including air racing.
> > 2. The Lycoming achieves full power and cruise power at RPM levels
>that are
> > half of what the Subaru uses. With the higher RPM levels wear and
>tear is
> > increased. To put things in perspective, start your car, put it in
>first
> > (or low) gear and drive it for 3.5 to 4 hours at 4200 RPM (it is
>only going
> > to take a few seconds to become uncomfortable with the way the
>engine
> > sounds). Maybe go to a Subaru dealer and demo a car with a similar
>engine in
> > the above manner. This would be similar to what the Subaru is
>doing on a
> > cross country flight. If that does not cause you a little concern
>then the
> > Subaru conversion may be right for you.
> > 3. Air-cooled (Lycoming) engines pose fewer potential problems
>than
> > liquid-cooled (Subaru) engines. On air-cooled engines, there are
>no
> > radiators or coolant hoses to check, maintain, repair or fail.
>There are no
> > water pumps to fail. There is absolutely no danger of oil and
>coolant
> > mixing together because a head gasket deteriorated between the
>respective
> > lubricating and cooling passages. I have completely rebuilt air-
>cooled and
> > liquid-cooled engines and the air-cooled engines are less complex
>and
> > present fewer opportunities for fluid leaks or assembly mistakes.
> >
> > It may seem like I am knocking Jan's conversion, but I am not.
>Again, I
> > think his conversion is the most professional, well thought out
>package I
> > have seen. The Lycoming may be old technology but it is proven,
>reliable
> > technology. It sickens me to read e-mail condemning Lycoming
>because of
> > some mechanical failures, and soley because of those failures a
>person
> > should choose the Subaru. We are dealing with man-made objects and
>all
> > man-made objects are subject to failure. When the Subaru
>conversion numbers
> > flying approach the numbers of the Lycoming I would be willing to
>bet the
> > percent of mechanical failures for each will be relatively close.
>One of
> > the major advantages for me in building my own plane is that I can
>perform
> > all maintenance and repairs on that plane if I choose. And because
>of my
> > capabilities I am going to perform all of the engine work. The
>Lycoming
> > will be the easiest to maintain, repair and rebuild. At least that
>is what
> > my fourteen years in the auto industry tells me.
> >
> > Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this group. I know
>when I
> > start my 7A in the spring my mistakes will be fewer as a result of
>all of
> > the e-mails. And I also know my 7A will have a Lycoming on its
>nose.
> > Everybody have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Bill
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
>http://messenger.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Author: "Bev Sinkbeil" <bevandjim@...> Time: Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:00 pm PST Link
Hi Bill, Great points.I have a new io-360 and never considered anything else. Did look at some subaru rv-6s at Arlington.... not impressed.Hope to hear more from you as you start building. Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Heard <iamheard@h...>
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: Engines
Hello GC,
People seem to be making the decision to go with the Subaru because of
stories they have read about Lycoming engine failures. The point I was
trying to make is that until there are similar numbers of Subaru engines in
service we won't know what the failure rate is but if the Subaru gets
anywhere near Lycoming numbers there will be a percentage of mechanical
failures. Based on my earlier e-mail, speculation says the failure rate
would be higher for the Subaru but I thought that might be a little
foreboding. Thanks for the reply and comment.
Bill
>From: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@y...>
>Reply-To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
>To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: Engines
>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 03:59:03 -0000
>
>Hi Bill,
>Thanks for your intelligent and well-balanced post on Lycoming vs.
>Subaru conversion. Later in your reply, however, you say you'd bet
>that given similar numbers of each flying you think there will be
>similar failure rates.
>
>Doesn't that contradict your basic points above that about how the
>Subaru operates at higher RPM (which increases failure odds) and has
>various extra components (which also increase failure odds)?
>
>Thanks
>GC
>
>--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Bill Heard" <iamheard@h...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have been reading the e-mails debating Lycoming vs. Subaru and
>felt it was
> > time to throw my two cents in. Before I make my statement let me
>say that I
> > used to be an NIASE certified mechanic with one certification short
>of being
> > a master mechanic and that missing certification was automatic
> > transmissions. I have completely rebuilt Volkswagen, Audi, MG,
>Austin
> > Healey, Triumph and Honda engines so I feel I know a little about
>what I am
> > about to say.
> >
> > Jan's Subaru engine conversion is a very well thought out, good
>looking and
> > professionally executed project. I commend Jan on his
>perserverance and
> > foresight throughout the development of the Subaru package. I have
>no doubt
> > that his conversion will provide many pilots with years of
>pleasurable
> > flying. However, there are several items I have considered in
>making my
> > powerplant decision that I thought might be helpful for those of
>you that
> > are sitting on the fence.
> >
> > 1. The best way to achieve large amounts of reliable horsepower is
>through
> > large displacement engines. Lycoming's O-320 produces 160 HP at
>2700 RPM
> > vs. Jan's Subaru 2.5L producing 165 HP at 5700 RPM. The O-320 has
>320 cubic
> > inches of displacement vs. the Subaru 2.5L's 152 cubic inches. The
>Subaru
> > is squeezing the same amount of horsepower out of an engine less
>that half
> > the displacement of the Lycoming. When you try to get more
>horsepower out
> > of a smaller engine the reliability is reduced. This has been
>proven again
> > and again in all forms of motorsports including air racing.
> > 2. The Lycoming achieves full power and cruise power at RPM levels
>that are
> > half of what the Subaru uses. With the higher RPM levels wear and
>tear is
> > increased. To put things in perspective, start your car, put it in
>first
> > (or low) gear and drive it for 3.5 to 4 hours at 4200 RPM (it is
>only going
> > to take a few seconds to become uncomfortable with the way the
>engine
> > sounds). Maybe go to a Subaru dealer and demo a car with a similar
>engine in
> > the above manner. This would be similar to what the Subaru is
>doing on a
> > cross country flight. If that does not cause you a little concern
>then the
> > Subaru conversion may be right for you.
> > 3. Air-cooled (Lycoming) engines pose fewer potential problems
>than
> > liquid-cooled (Subaru) engines. On air-cooled engines, there are
>no
> > radiators or coolant hoses to check, maintain, repair or fail.
>There are no
> > water pumps to fail. There is absolutely no danger of oil and
>coolant
> > mixing together because a head gasket deteriorated between the
>respective
> > lubricating and cooling passages. I have completely rebuilt air-
>cooled and
> > liquid-cooled engines and the air-cooled engines are less complex
>and
> > present fewer opportunities for fluid leaks or assembly mistakes.
> >
> > It may seem like I am knocking Jan's conversion, but I am not.
>Again, I
> > think his conversion is the most professional, well thought out
>package I
> > have seen. The Lycoming may be old technology but it is proven,
>reliable
> > technology. It sickens me to read e-mail condemning Lycoming
>because of
> > some mechanical failures, and soley because of those failures a
>person
> > should choose the Subaru. We are dealing with man-made objects and
>all
> > man-made objects are subject to failure. When the Subaru
>conversion numbers
> > flying approach the numbers of the Lycoming I would be willing to
>bet the
> > percent of mechanical failures for each will be relatively close.
>One of
> > the major advantages for me in building my own plane is that I can
>perform
> > all maintenance and repairs on that plane if I choose. And because
>of my
> > capabilities I am going to perform all of the engine work. The
>Lycoming
> > will be the easiest to maintain, repair and rebuild. At least that
>is what
> > my fourteen years in the auto industry tells me.
> >
> > Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this group. I know
>when I
> > start my 7A in the spring my mistakes will be fewer as a result of
>all of
> > the e-mails. And I also know my 7A will have a Lycoming on its
>nose.
> > Everybody have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Bill
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
>http://messenger.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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: David Consbruck <dconsbruck@...> Time: Sat Dec 22, 2001 11:47 am PST Link
Bill: Finally...a sane, intelligent, and calm response. There is an
advantage to every disadvantage and a disadvantage to every advantage,
according to Dale Carnegie, who pretty much knew what he was talking
about. Thanks.
David Consbruck
(preview plans for RV-9A) (hey, it's a start!!...anyway)
--- Bill Heard <iamheard@h...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been reading the e-mails debating Lycoming vs. Subaru and felt
> it was
> time to throw my two cents in. Before I make my statement let me say
> that I
> used to be an NIASE certified mechanic with one certification short
> of being
> a master mechanic and that missing certification was automatic
> transmissions. I have completely rebuilt Volkswagen, Audi, MG,
> Austin
> Healey, Triumph and Honda engines so I feel I know a little about
> what I am
> about to say.
>
> Jan's Subaru engine conversion is a very well thought out, good
> looking and
> professionally executed project. I commend Jan on his perserverance
> and
> foresight throughout the development of the Subaru package. I have
> no doubt
> that his conversion will provide many pilots with years of
> pleasurable
> flying. However, there are several items I have considered in making
> my
> powerplant decision that I thought might be helpful for those of you
> that
> are sitting on the fence.
>
> 1. The best way to achieve large amounts of reliable horsepower is
> through
> large displacement engines. Lycoming's O-320 produces 160 HP at 2700
> RPM
> vs. Jan's Subaru 2.5L producing 165 HP at 5700 RPM. The O-320 has
> 320 cubic
> inches of displacement vs. the Subaru 2.5L's 152 cubic inches. The
> Subaru
> is squeezing the same amount of horsepower out of an engine less that
> half
> the displacement of the Lycoming. When you try to get more
> horsepower out
> of a smaller engine the reliability is reduced. This has been proven
> again
> and again in all forms of motorsports including air racing.
> 2. The Lycoming achieves full power and cruise power at RPM levels
> that are
> half of what the Subaru uses. With the higher RPM levels wear and
> tear is
> increased. To put things in perspective, start your car, put it in
> first
> (or low) gear and drive it for 3.5 to 4 hours at 4200 RPM (it is only
> going
> to take a few seconds to become uncomfortable with the way the engine
>
> sounds). Maybe go to a Subaru dealer and demo a car with a similar
> engine in
> the above manner. This would be similar to what the Subaru is doing
> on a
> cross country flight. If that does not cause you a little concern
> then the
> Subaru conversion may be right for you.
> 3. Air-cooled (Lycoming) engines pose fewer potential problems than
> liquid-cooled (Subaru) engines. On air-cooled engines, there are no
> radiators or coolant hoses to check, maintain, repair or fail. There
> are no
> water pumps to fail. There is absolutely no danger of oil and
> coolant
> mixing together because a head gasket deteriorated between the
> respective
> lubricating and cooling passages. I have completely rebuilt
> air-cooled and
> liquid-cooled engines and the air-cooled engines are less complex and
>
> present fewer opportunities for fluid leaks or assembly mistakes.
>
> It may seem like I am knocking Jan's conversion, but I am not.
> Again, I
> think his conversion is the most professional, well thought out
> package I
> have seen. The Lycoming may be old technology but it is proven,
> reliable
> technology. It sickens me to read e-mail condemning Lycoming because
> of
> some mechanical failures, and soley because of those failures a
> person
> should choose the Subaru. We are dealing with man-made objects and
> all
> man-made objects are subject to failure. When the Subaru conversion
> numbers
> flying approach the numbers of the Lycoming I would be willing to bet
> the
> percent of mechanical failures for each will be relatively close.
> One of
> the major advantages for me in building my own plane is that I can
> perform
> all maintenance and repairs on that plane if I choose. And because
> of my
> capabilities I am going to perform all of the engine work. The
> Lycoming
> will be the easiest to maintain, repair and rebuild. At least that
> is what
> my fourteen years in the auto industry tells me.
>
> Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this group. I know when
> I
> start my 7A in the spring my mistakes will be fewer as a result of
> all of
> the e-mails. And I also know my 7A will have a Lycoming on its nose.
>
> Everybody have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
>
> Respectfully,
> Bill
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
=====
"Make a choice to be positive. Someone just may depend on the result. It could be me, or it could be you!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com