Author: eaainc@... Time: Sun Dec 23, 2001 7:10 pm PST Link
Please see the latest at <A HREF="http://www.subaruaircraft.com/">www.subaruaircraft.com</A>
Jan Eggenfellner
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: henry kinney <henrykinney@...> Time: Sun Dec 23, 2001 9:09 pm PST Link
I am getting tired of these Subaru guys hawking their
product. It seems very commercial to me.
--- eaainc@a... wrote:
> Please see the latest at <A
>
HREF="http://www.subaruaircraft.com/">www.subaruaircraft.com</A
> Jan Eggenfellner
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
=====
Henry W. Kinney
4395 Menge Ave.
Pass Christian, Mississippi
39571
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Sun Dec 23, 2001 9:17 pm PST Link
It's pretty awesome to see a modern engine in a modern plane.
Some day hopefuly everyone will have the same opportunity (Subaru or
otherwise)
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., henry kinney <henrykinney@y...> wrote:
> I am getting tired of these Subaru guys hawking their
> product. It seems very commercial to me.
Author: fitzair4@... Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 6:07 am PST Link
In a message dated 12/23/2001 9:10:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
henrykinney@y... writes:
> these Subaru guys hawking their
> product. It seems very commercial to me.
Their good information. I never knew they sold Subarus.
Let see now!!!!!!!!!!!!Vans, Lycoming,ECT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Mike" <mnellis@...> Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 8:53 am PST Link
Lots of folks are interested in alternatinve engines for their RV's.
Supplying a link that points to something as important and innovative as
an engine alternative certainly seems appropriate to me. Are you
suggesting we don't link to Vans website? How about websites where
people sell heated pitot tubes or electrical connectors. Let me suggest
that trying to build an RV without links to alternative products would
not be nearly as much fun.
Mike Nellis
Georgetown, TX (GTU)
RV-6 Waiting on Fuselage N699BM (Reserved)
STinson 108-2 N9666K
-----Original Message-----
From: henry kinney [mailto:henrykinney@y...]
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 11:10 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] RV9A Subaru now flying
I am getting tired of these Subaru guys hawking their
product. It seems very commercial to me.
--- eaainc@a... wrote:
> Please see the latest at <A
>
HREF="http://www.subaruaircraft.com/">www.subaruaircraft.com</A
> Jan Eggenfellner
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
=====
Henry W. Kinney
4395 Menge Ave.
Pass Christian, Mississippi
39571
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=214563.1778827.3296761.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
340085:HM/A=867009/R=0/*http:/www.crystalvoicelive.com/whatFamily.asp?Af
filiateId=00120002
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=214563.1778827.3296761.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705340085:HM/A=867009/rand=506230902
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: henry kinney <henrykinney@...> Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 9:52 am PST Link
It appears to me that the people that are marketing
these conversions are using the chat group to further
their product. I think that is inappropriate for the
group.
I would rather keep the discussion to the group
and not the vendors.
Incidentally the message posted last week on this
subject,from an Aand P convinced me that a Subaru
conversion would be sheer folly both from a resale
perspective and from a safety one.
I am no expert on this.
--- Mike <mnellis@p...> wrote:
> Lots of folks are interested in alternatinve engines
> for their RV's.
> Supplying a link that points to something as
> important and innovative as
> an engine alternative certainly seems appropriate to
> me. Are you
> suggesting we don't link to Vans website? How about
> websites where
> people sell heated pitot tubes or electrical
> connectors. Let me suggest
> that trying to build an RV without links to
> alternative products would
> not be nearly as much fun.
>
> Mike Nellis
> Georgetown, TX (GTU)
> RV-6 Waiting on Fuselage N699BM (Reserved)
> STinson 108-2 N9666K
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: henry kinney [mailto:henrykinney@y...]
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 11:10 PM
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] RV9A Subaru now flying
>
> I am getting tired of these Subaru guys hawking
> their
> product. It seems very commercial to me.
> --- eaainc@a... wrote:
> > Please see the latest at <A
HREF="http://www.subaruaircraft.com/">www.subaruaircraft.com</A
> > Jan Eggenfellner
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> =====
> Henry W. Kinney
> 4395 Menge Ave.
> Pass Christian, Mississippi
> 39571
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=214563.1778827.3296761.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
>
340085:HM/A=867009/R=0/*http:/www.crystalvoicelive.com/whatFamily.asp?Af
> filiateId=00120002
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=214563.1778827.3296761.1261774/D=egrou
> pmail/S=1705340085:HM/A=867009/rand=506230902
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of
> Service.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
=====
Henry W. Kinney
4395 Menge Ave.
Pass Christian, Mississippi
39571
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 10:29 am PST Link
hi mike,
i think henry is talking more about the actual posts from the subaru
conversion business people than about just advertisement links. i
too enjoy the links. but the posts from commercial enterprises (as
opposed to RV builders or those interested in RVs) seem somewhat
inappropriate to me unless they're building the RV9A themselves.
I did notice one of the RV builders painting his plane with a blatant
Subaru logo paint scheme - I wonder if Subaru is giving a discount to
people who paint their logo on their plane.
At any rate, I just don't think conversions are viable at present. I
don't like the high rpms (no matter what they say about that) or the
reduction gear systems. This morning I ran my Mercury Sable V6 at
just 4,000 rpm for 5 seconds and I would *not* trust it to power an
airplane at full throttle or even 75% for one hour. Just not wise.
--- In RV7and7A@y..., henry kinney <henrykinney@y...> wrote:
> It appears to me that the people that are marketing
> these conversions are using the chat group to further
> their product. I think that is inappropriate for the
> group.
> I would rather keep the discussion to the group
> and not the vendors.
> Incidentally the message posted last week on this
> subject,from an Aand P convinced me that a Subaru
> conversion would be sheer folly both from a resale
> perspective and from a safety one.
> I am no expert on this.
> --- Mike <mnellis@p...> wrote:
> > Lots of folks are interested in alternatinve engines
> > for their RV's.
> > Supplying a link that points to something as
> > important and innovative as
> > an engine alternative certainly seems appropriate to
> > me. Are you
> > suggesting we don't link to Vans website? How about
> > websites where
> > people sell heated pitot tubes or electrical
> > connectors. Let me suggest
> > that trying to build an RV without links to
> > alternative products would
> > not be nearly as much fun.
> >
> > Mike Nellis
> > Georgetown, TX (GTU)
> > RV-6 Waiting on Fuselage N699BM (Reserved)
> > STinson 108-2 N9666K
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: henry kinney [mailto:henrykinney@y...]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 11:10 PM
> > To: RV7and7A@y...
> > Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] RV9A Subaru now flying
> >
> > I am getting tired of these Subaru guys hawking
> > their
> > product. It seems very commercial to me.
> > --- eaainc@a... wrote:
> > > Please see the latest at <A
> HREF="http://www.subaruaircraft.com/">www.subaruaircraft.com</A
> > > Jan Eggenfellner
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > > removed]
> > =====
> > Henry W. Kinney
> > 4395 Menge Ave.
> > Pass Christian, Mississippi
> > 39571
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> > http://greetings.yahoo.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=214563.1778827.3296761.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
05
340085:HM/A=867009/R=0/*http:/www.crystalvoicelive.com/whatFamily.asp?
Af
> > filiateId=00120002
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=214563.1778827.3296761.1261774/D=egrou
> > pmail/S=1705340085:HM/A=867009/rand=506230902
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of
> > Service.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> =====
> Henry W. Kinney
> 4395 Menge Ave.
> Pass Christian, Mississippi
> 39571
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 10:40 am PST Link
I get emails every week from A&Ps that are very glad to see an
alternative to the Lyc and are very excited about the Subaru option.
Tha arguments presented in the earlier post from an A&P were not
altogether accurate and were quite emotionaly biased toward the Lyc.
I don't know for certain, but there may have been more Eggenfellner
Subaru packages sold for RVs in the last six months than Lycoming
engines. A "naysayer" attitude toward this subject is like putting
your hands over your ears and not recognizing that there are some
changing winds regarding GA engines. I'm not declaring the Subaru is
the perfect GA engine (but certainly the Lyc isn't either). Some of
us will try new technologies so that we and others can learn from the
attempt and benefit from our learning curve.
Bottom line - there are a bunch of RVs going together right now with
Subaru firewall forward packages. The next year or so will reveal
much information about this prospect. So get those hands off your
ears, the story should be interesting regardless of the outcome.
Robert Paisley
BTW - if the Subaru package works out well, the resale might even be
enhanced. The Subaru leadtime is stretching out just like that of the
RV-7 - smells like market demand to me.
> Incidentally the message posted last week on this
> subject,from an Aand P convinced me that a Subaru
> conversion would be sheer folly both from a resale
> perspective and from a safety one.
> I am no expert on this.
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 10:48 am PST Link
The "happy" rpm range of an engine has a lot to do with the piston
speed and valve train components. The piston speed of the short
stroke Subaru motor at 5000 rpm is similar to the Lyc at 3000 rpm.
The overhead valve design of the Subaru means there are no pushrods
going up and down either. I was thinking about the Subaru rpm this
weekend while driving an Acura Integra on the freeway. That motor was
geared for 4000 rpm at cruising speeds in 5th gear. It was quiet,
smooth, and designed for sustained operation at that rpm range.
The people that have actually flown behind a Subaru have marvelled at
the smoothness and quietness. This translates into an engine that is
much happier at operating rpm than the engine it replaces.
Robert Paisley
This morning I ran my Mercury Sable V6 at
> just 4,000 rpm for 5 seconds and I would *not* trust it to power an
> airplane at full throttle or even 75% for one hour. Just not wise.
Author: "Walt A." <walt99@...> Time: Mon Dec 24, 2001 12:31 pm PST Link
Good points on the RPM issue Robert.
And I agree with the premise that it has more to do with what the motor is designed to run at rather than a comparison of RPM numbers themselves. I have ridden various motorcycles for the past 25 years, they are designed to "run" in the upper RPM ranges, from 4K and up easy. I have personally put tons of miles (my current 3 year old BMW K1200RS has 30K on it already) at cruising RPM's in the 4-5000 range (and much higher), they are sweet machines, smooth, fast, responsive and will run at 5K all day long day after day. And BTW, I have never had an engine related failure yet. In fact, I've never had a mechanical engine or transmission failure that stopped me. I often wished I could put my BMW engine in the plane it runs so good! BTW I've been an A/P mechanic for 20 years and have worked on cars/bikes and airplanes since I was a kid. I'm still not sure which PP I'm going to use but it will probably be the Lyc, only until the other engines have a proven history flying. Wish I could put that old 600HP Chevy 327 in the 7A that I used to run in my Vette, now that was a sweet motor!
Happy Holidays!!
----- Original Message -----
From: robert_paisley
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
The "happy" rpm range of an engine has a lot to do with the piston
speed and valve train components. The piston speed of the short
stroke Subaru motor at 5000 rpm is similar to the Lyc at 3000 rpm.
The overhead valve design of the Subaru means there are no pushrods
going up and down either. I was thinking about the Subaru rpm this
weekend while driving an Acura Integra on the freeway. That motor was
geared for 4000 rpm at cruising speeds in 5th gear. It was quiet,
smooth, and designed for sustained operation at that rpm range.
The people that have actually flown behind a Subaru have marvelled at
the smoothness and quietness. This translates into an engine that is
much happier at operating rpm than the engine it replaces.
Robert Paisley
This morning I ran my Mercury Sable V6 at
> just 4,000 rpm for 5 seconds and I would *not* trust it to power an
> airplane at full throttle or even 75% for one hour. Just not wise.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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: "MaxHegler" <MaxHegler@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 8:57 am PST Link
High RPM auto engines aren't new. My 1970 280SL has a 2.8 liter engine.
In
fourth gear it runs 3450 rpm at 60 mph. I runs great and has never had a
problem. And these things last for ages!
Merry Christmas!
Take Care,
Max
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt A." <walt99@a...>
To: <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> Good points on the RPM issue Robert.
> And I agree with the premise that it has more to do with what the motor
is designed to run at rather than a comparison of RPM numbers themselves. I
have ridden various motorcycles for the past 25 years, they are designed to
"run" in the upper RPM ranges, from 4K and up easy. I have personally put
tons of miles (my current 3 year old BMW K1200RS has 30K on it already) at
cruising RPM's in the 4-5000 range (and much higher), they are sweet
machines, smooth, fast, responsive and will run at 5K all day long day after
day. And BTW, I have never had an engine related failure yet. In fact, I've
never had a mechanical engine or transmission failure that stopped me. I
often wished I could put my BMW engine in the plane it runs so good! BTW
I've been an A/P mechanic for 20 years and have worked on cars/bikes and
airplanes since I was a kid. I'm still not sure which PP I'm going to use
but it will probably be the Lyc, only until the other engines have a proven
history flying. Wish I could put that old 600HP Chevy 327 in the 7A that I
used to run in my Vette, now that was a sweet motor!
>
> Happy Holidays!!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: robert_paisley
> To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 12:48 PM
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> The "happy" rpm range of an engine has a lot to do with the piston
> speed and valve train components. The piston speed of the short
> stroke Subaru motor at 5000 rpm is similar to the Lyc at 3000 rpm.
> The overhead valve design of the Subaru means there are no pushrods
> going up and down either. I was thinking about the Subaru rpm this
> weekend while driving an Acura Integra on the freeway. That motor was
> geared for 4000 rpm at cruising speeds in 5th gear. It was quiet,
> smooth, and designed for sustained operation at that rpm range.
> The people that have actually flown behind a Subaru have marvelled at
> the smoothness and quietness. This translates into an engine that is
> much happier at operating rpm than the engine it replaces.
> Robert Paisley
> This morning I ran my Mercury Sable V6 at
> > just 4,000 rpm for 5 seconds and I would *not* trust it to power an
> > airplane at full throttle or even 75% for one hour. Just not wise.
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 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]
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 9:34 am PST Link
lots of good responses on this subject. obviously it's not as simple
as "lower rpm is best," but i agree with the person who said they're
going to wait for some reliability data and stick with the Lyc in the
meantime. I don't like the reduction gears either. I would like to
see a new and modernized aircraft engine design rather than simply an
auto conversion. Do we all agree with that?
(BTW, why is Subaru being used? Why not Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes
Benz?)
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "MaxHegler" <MaxHegler@m...> wrote:
> High RPM auto engines aren't new. My 1970 280SL has a 2.8
liter engine.
> In
> fourth gear it runs 3450 rpm at 60 mph. I runs great and has never
had a
> problem. And these things last for ages!
> Merry Christmas!
>
> Take Care,
> Max
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walt A." <walt99@a...>
> To: <RV7and7A@y...>
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> > Good points on the RPM issue Robert.
> > And I agree with the premise that it has more to do with what
the motor
> is designed to run at rather than a comparison of RPM numbers
themselves. I
> have ridden various motorcycles for the past 25 years, they are
designed to
> "run" in the upper RPM ranges, from 4K and up easy. I have
personally put
> tons of miles (my current 3 year old BMW K1200RS has 30K on it
already) at
> cruising RPM's in the 4-5000 range (and much higher), they are
sweet
> machines, smooth, fast, responsive and will run at 5K all day long
day after
> day. And BTW, I have never had an engine related failure yet. In
fact, I've
> never had a mechanical engine or transmission failure that stopped
me. I
> often wished I could put my BMW engine in the plane it runs so
good! BTW
> I've been an A/P mechanic for 20 years and have worked on
cars/bikes and
> airplanes since I was a kid. I'm still not sure which PP I'm going
to use
> but it will probably be the Lyc, only until the other engines have
a proven
> history flying. Wish I could put that old 600HP Chevy 327 in the 7A
that I
> used to run in my Vette, now that was a sweet motor!
> >
> > Happy Holidays!!
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: robert_paisley
> > To: RV7and7A@y...
> > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 12:48 PM
> > Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> > The "happy" rpm range of an engine has a lot to do with the
piston
> > speed and valve train components. The piston speed of the short
> > stroke Subaru motor at 5000 rpm is similar to the Lyc at 3000
rpm.
> > The overhead valve design of the Subaru means there are no
pushrods
> > going up and down either. I was thinking about the Subaru rpm
this
> > weekend while driving an Acura Integra on the freeway. That
motor was
> > geared for 4000 rpm at cruising speeds in 5th gear. It was
quiet,
> > smooth, and designed for sustained operation at that rpm range.
> > The people that have actually flown behind a Subaru have
marvelled at
> > the smoothness and quietness. This translates into an engine
that is
> > much happier at operating rpm than the engine it replaces.
> > Robert Paisley
> > This morning I ran my Mercury Sable V6 at
> > > just 4,000 rpm for 5 seconds and I would *not* trust it to
power an
> > > airplane at full throttle or even 75% for one hour. Just not
wise.
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > 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]
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 10:06 am PST Link
It's a flat four that was originally designed for aircraft - it's a
modern Lycoming (and it's indestructible)! The only thing that would
be nice to have different in the Subaru is maybe another liter of
displacement.
Robert Paisley
> (BTW, why is Subaru being used? Why not Toyota, Honda, BMW,
Mercedes
> Benz?)
Author: Tom Dickens <tdicken@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 10:34 am PST Link
I agree. Just look at a Lyc. engine and notice the front crankshaft
bearing(bushing). Right where the prop. is going to be swing the bearing
is several inches long and the diameter of the crank. The little gear
reduction units are just too small to handle the abuse that the Lyc.
could endure in the case of a prop. imbalance (and there are many
reasons that the prop. will get unbalanced in flight)...td.
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 1:07 pm PST Link
Where can I read the history of this Subaru engine originally
designed for aircraft?
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "robert_paisley" <robert@p...> wrote:
> It's a flat four that was originally designed for aircraft - it's a
> modern Lycoming (and it's indestructible)! The only thing that
would
> be nice to have different in the Subaru is maybe another liter of
> displacement.
> Robert Paisley
> > (BTW, why is Subaru being used? Why not Toyota, Honda, BMW,
> Mercedes
> > Benz?)
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 1:27 pm PST Link
Yes, that's a good point Tom. Vans recommends Lycs for now, for good
reasons. There is a builder (who's painting a huge Subaru logo on
his aircraft) who says on his website that the Subaru is "very
reliable," but actually that remains to be proven. The reduction
drive assemblies are not proven, nor is using the auto engine
itself. I have heard people say you can operate an auto engine at
high rpms, but I don't *want* to do that - they weren't designed to
be operated like that. The examples of "high" auto engine rpms
listed in this thread still are below the rpms required at full
throttle (and possibly 75% as well) on an aircraft. Also, the very
nature of the reduction drives are that they are creating many
opportunities for failure.
A used Lycoming is still a good deal, and according to Van's the used
engines are also safer - this is because the engine is already
seated. You are free to do complete testing in your fly-off period.
With *any* new engine, including the Subaru, you are flying-off not
just the airframe but the engine too, and that multiplies the
potential problems and can limit the airframe testing you can do.
The other issue is resale. The market generally follows conservative
wisdom which is based on long term trends and proven reliability. An
RV with a well-maintained Lycoming will probably be worth more than
an RV with a Subaru/reduction drive.
I think Robert said that the Subaru was originally designed for
aircraft, and I would like to read about that, but it remains true
that the engine is for autos and requires the reduction unit - which
reveals it ultimately was *not* designed for aircraft, right? I'm
just asking; I'm no expert.
--- In RV7and7A@y..., Tom Dickens <tdicken@a...> wrote:
> I agree. Just look at a Lyc. engine and notice the front
crankshaft
> bearing(bushing). Right where the prop. is going to be swing the
bearing
> is several inches long and the diameter of the crank. The little
gear
> reduction units are just too small to handle the abuse that the
Lyc.
> could endure in the case of a prop. imbalance (and there are many
> reasons that the prop. will get unbalanced in flight)...td.
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 8:11 pm PST Link
Keep in mind all turbine engines have reduction drives of much
greater complexity than those found on auto engine conversions.
There is not a leap of faith or technology to use an auto engine in a
plane. The real question is system reliability and this will be
determined in the near future for the Eggenfellner powered RVs. He
already has quite a few GlaStar customers with quite a few hours on
their Subaru engines packages. So maybe the reliability evidence is
to some degree already there.
I guess we will all find out together how the Subaru RV customers
make out.
Robert Paisley
Author: "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 8:17 pm PST Link
You have alot of good points, Robert.... I would like to hear some
sort of "panel" discussion between you and other people on this
subject.
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "robert_paisley" <robert@p...> wrote:
> Keep in mind all turbine engines have reduction drives of much
> greater complexity than those found on auto engine conversions.
> There is not a leap of faith or technology to use an auto engine in
a
> plane. The real question is system reliability and this will be
> determined in the near future for the Eggenfellner powered RVs. He
> already has quite a few GlaStar customers with quite a few hours on
> their Subaru engines packages. So maybe the reliability evidence is
> to some degree already there.
>
> I guess we will all find out together how the Subaru RV customers
> make out.
> Robert Paisley
Author: "SBooska" <boos1@...> Time: Tue Dec 25, 2001 8:56 pm PST Link
Has this list been hijacked by some guy peddling auto engines for aircraft?
To each his own, but maybe there should be a "Subes beat Lycs" list or
something for him. This propaganda should not be inflicted mercilessly on
poor RV devotees.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: robert_paisley [mailto:robert@p...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 8:12 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
Keep in mind all turbine engines have reduction drives of much
greater complexity than those found on auto engine conversions.
There is not a leap of faith or technology to use an auto engine in a
plane. The real question is system reliability and this will be
determined in the near future for the Eggenfellner powered RVs. He
already has quite a few GlaStar customers with quite a few hours on
their Subaru engines packages. So maybe the reliability evidence is
to some degree already there.
I guess we will all find out together how the Subaru RV customers
make out.
Robert Paisley
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: Paul Pocock <ppocock@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 10:14 am PST Link
><With *any* new engine, including the Subaru, you are flying-off not
>just the airframe but the engine too, and that multiplies the
>potential problems and can limit the airframe testing you can do.
Just for your info, the Egg Suburu's are not new- they are pre-owned cores
pulled out of salvage yards. Whether there is anyway to tell just how
"used" they are, I do not know.
Paul Pocock
Author: Bill Strahan <Bill@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 10:45 am PST Link
Are they torn down and checked?
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Pocock [mailto:ppocock@m...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:15 PM
To: RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
><With *any* new engine, including the Subaru, you are flying-off not
>just the airframe but the engine too, and that multiplies the
>potential problems and can limit the airframe testing you can do.
Just for your info, the Egg Suburu's are not new- they are pre-owned
cores
pulled out of salvage yards. Whether there is anyway to tell just how
"used" they are, I do not know.
Paul Pocock
Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
www.vansaircraft.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 10:50 am PST Link
They are not torn down. Jan only uses engines with less than 20K
miles on them from 1 or 2 year old cars. He uses the single overhead
cam EJ25 that came out in '99.
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., Bill Strahan <Bill@g...> wrote:
> Are they torn down and checked?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Pocock [mailto:ppocock@m...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:15 PM
> To: RV7and7A@y...
> Subject: Re: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> ><With *any* new engine, including the Subaru, you are flying-off
not
> >just the airframe but the engine too, and that multiplies the
> >potential problems and can limit the airframe testing you can do.
> Just for your info, the Egg Suburu's are not new- they are pre-owned
> cores
> pulled out of salvage yards. Whether there is anyway to tell just
how
> "used" they are, I do not know.
>
> Paul Pocock
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:41 pm PST Link
Does anybody know how much additional complexity is involved with cowling
over the Subaru engine? I assume you no longer need inlets...?
)_( Dan
dan@r...
http://www.rvproject.com:8000
do not archive
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:02 pm PST Link
You need the standard air inlets on each side of the spinner. You do
not need the bottom carb inlet. On the 9, you order the RV-7 IO-360
cowl - no mods required.
Robert
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...> wrote:
> Does anybody know how much additional complexity is involved with
cowling
> over the Subaru engine? I assume you no longer need inlets...?
>
> )_( Dan
> dan@r...
> http://www.rvproject.com:8000
> do not archive
Author: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:09 pm PST Link
Cool. Since I'm building a 7, I assume the effort will be similar in terms
of cowling a Subaru vs. a Lycoming? What about baffling, a radiator, etc.?
Any idea on the effort involved in
positioning/mounting/baffling/sealing/etc.? Anything else to keep in mind?
Just trying to gauge other "fine print" tasks involved.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert_paisley" <robert@p...>
To: <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:01 PM
Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> You need the standard air inlets on each side of the spinner. You do
> not need the bottom carb inlet. On the 9, you order the RV-7 IO-360
> cowl - no mods required.
> Robert
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...> wrote:
> > Does anybody know how much additional complexity is involved with
> cowling
> > over the Subaru engine? I assume you no longer need inlets...?
> >
> > )_( Dan
> > dan@r...
> > http://www.rvproject.com:8000
> > do not archive
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:44 pm PST Link
The subaru firewall forward package is shipped complete and pre run.
There is not much to do other than bolting it to the firewall,
getting +12v and gas to it and mounting the throttle (also included).
It's a plug and play package that is always in tune (just like a
modern engine should be). I'll have mine in March. I'll put plenty of
info on my builder's site for those who are interested. Jan has a
video that is very informative - but beware - if you view it, you
might get hooked.
Robert
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...> wrote:
> Cool. Since I'm building a 7, I assume the effort will be similar
in terms
> of cowling a Subaru vs. a Lycoming? What about baffling, a
radiator, etc.?
> Any idea on the effort involved in
> positioning/mounting/baffling/sealing/etc.? Anything else to keep
in mind?
>
> Just trying to gauge other "fine print" tasks involved.
>
> )_( Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert_paisley" <robert@p...>
> To: <RV7and7A@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:01 PM
> Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> > You need the standard air inlets on each side of the spinner. You
do
> > not need the bottom carb inlet. On the 9, you order the RV-7 IO-
360
> > cowl - no mods required.
> > Robert
> >
> > --- In RV7and7A@y..., "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...> wrote:
> > > Does anybody know how much additional complexity is involved
with
> > cowling
> > > over the Subaru engine? I assume you no longer need inlets...?
> > >
> > > )_( Dan
> > > dan@r...
> > > http://www.rvproject.com:8000
> > > do not archive
> > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > www.vansaircraft.net
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Author: Miller Robert <rmiller3@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 8:24 pm PST Link
Robert:
What is the URL for your builder's site?
Love to have a look.
Thanks.
Robert Miller
robert_paisley wrote:
> The subaru firewall forward package is shipped complete and pre run.
> There is not much to do other than bolting it to the firewall,
> getting +12v and gas to it and mounting the throttle (also included).
> It's a plug and play package that is always in tune (just like a
> modern engine should be). I'll have mine in March. I'll put plenty of
> info on my builder's site for those who are interested. Jan has a
> video that is very informative - but beware - if you view it, you
> might get hooked.
> Robert
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...> wrote:
> > Cool. Since I'm building a 7, I assume the effort will be similar
> in terms
> > of cowling a Subaru vs. a Lycoming? What about baffling, a
> radiator, etc.?
> > Any idea on the effort involved in
> > positioning/mounting/baffling/sealing/etc.? Anything else to keep
> in mind?
> >
> > Just trying to gauge other "fine print" tasks involved.
> >
> > )_( Dan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "robert_paisley" <robert@p...>
> > To: <RV7and7A@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 7:01 PM
> > Subject: [RV7and7A] Re: RV9A Subaru now flying
> > > You need the standard air inlets on each side of the spinner. You
> do
> > > not need the bottom carb inlet. On the 9, you order the RV-7 IO-
> 360
> > > cowl - no mods required.
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > --- In RV7and7A@y..., "Dan Checkoway" <dan@r...> wrote:
> > > > Does anybody know how much additional complexity is involved
> with
> > > cowling
> > > > over the Subaru engine? I assume you no longer need inlets...?
> > > >
> > > > )_( Dan
> > > > dan@r...
> > > > http://www.rvproject.com:8000
> > > > do not archive
> > > Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> > > www.vansaircraft.net
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 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: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Wed Dec 26, 2001 9:02 pm PST Link
http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
RP
--- In RV7and7A@y..., Miller Robert <rmiller3@e...> wrote:
> Robert:
> What is the URL for your builder's site?
> Love to have a look.
> Thanks.
> Robert Miller
Author: Miller Robert <rmiller3@...> Time: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:20 am PST Link
Nice site.
Thanks.
Robert
robert_paisley wrote:
> http://www.protekperformance.com/rv7
> RP
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., Miller Robert <rmiller3@e...> wrote:
> > Robert:
> > What is the URL for your builder's site?
> > Love to have a look.
> > Thanks.
> > Robert Miller
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[Image]
> 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: "boats_planes" <boats_planes@...> Time: Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:04 am PST Link
I agree with your opinion about the market valuing proven
configurations and though the Subaru intrigues me I plan to use the
proven Lycoming.
However, I don't think that the existence of a gear reduction unit
indicates the engine was not designed for aviation. In my widespread
search for an aircraft prior to deciding to build an RV-7A, I looked
at and flew a Pilatus P-3. It was the one in the Pilatus booth at
Oshkosh last year. That aircraft had a Lycoming GIO-540 (or something
close to that) that had a reduction gear on it. This was a standard
Lycoming production engine in the 1950's.
You're correct that it's something else to fail. In my reasearh on
the P-3 I discovered lots of information on how carefully the
throttle/prop controls had to be handled to avoid damage to the unit.
Best regards,
Scott
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "manlosangeles" <manlosangeles@y...> wrote:
> Yes, that's a good point Tom. Vans recommends Lycs for now, for
good
> reasons. There is a builder (who's painting a huge Subaru logo on
> his aircraft) who says on his website that the Subaru is "very
> reliable," but actually that remains to be proven. The reduction
> drive assemblies are not proven, nor is using the auto engine
> itself. I have heard people say you can operate an auto engine at
> high rpms, but I don't *want* to do that - they weren't designed to
> be operated like that. The examples of "high" auto engine rpms
> listed in this thread still are below the rpms required at full
> throttle (and possibly 75% as well) on an aircraft. Also, the very
> nature of the reduction drives are that they are creating many
> opportunities for failure.
>
> A used Lycoming is still a good deal, and according to Van's the
used
> engines are also safer - this is because the engine is already
> seated. You are free to do complete testing in your fly-off
period.
> With *any* new engine, including the Subaru, you are flying-off not
> just the airframe but the engine too, and that multiplies the
> potential problems and can limit the airframe testing you can do.
>
> The other issue is resale. The market generally follows
conservative
> wisdom which is based on long term trends and proven reliability.
An
> RV with a well-maintained Lycoming will probably be worth more than
> an RV with a Subaru/reduction drive.
>
> I think Robert said that the Subaru was originally designed for
> aircraft, and I would like to read about that, but it remains true
> that the engine is for autos and requires the reduction unit -
which
> reveals it ultimately was *not* designed for aircraft, right? I'm
> just asking; I'm no expert.
>
> --- In RV7and7A@y..., Tom Dickens <tdicken@a...> wrote:
> > I agree. Just look at a Lyc. engine and notice the front
> crankshaft
> > bearing(bushing). Right where the prop. is going to be swing the
> bearing
> > is several inches long and the diameter of the crank. The little
> gear
> > reduction units are just too small to handle the abuse that the
> Lyc.
> > could endure in the case of a prop. imbalance (and there are
many
> > reasons that the prop. will get unbalanced in flight)...td.
Author: zrxordeath@... Time: Sat Jan 19, 2002 6:59 pm PST Link
Gentlemen, I am far from an airplane expert, but I have an extensive
background in high-performance motorcycles, and their assembly. I also have
rebuilt more auto engines than I would ever care to admit. The issue of
Subaru Vs. Lycoming is an interesting one, but I think the answer is best
summed up by the section on alternate engines on Van's site. The visual of
the engineer sitting there beating his head on his desk, saying "No, no, no!,
if I'd known you were going to do THAT with it, I'd have designed something
different".
I am a real newbie to aircraft, and I have to admit, when I wandered
over to the shop at my local FBO, and peeked under the cowling of a Cessna,
my first response was "you are kidding, right???"
Yes, The Lycoming is a dinosaur, but so is the smallblock Chevrolet, and no
one has yet really improved on it for its intended mission.
The problems I personally have with small-displacement, high revving engines
for aircraft, are as follows:
1) Design. This is simple, if you need an engine to produce maximum torque
at low RPM (like 2700), You don't engineer a short stroke, high revving
engine for the job, You would use a large displacement, relatively long
stroke engine, and keep the piston speed well below the theoretical limit of
4000 feet per minute.(ok, engineer types, check me on that, school was 10
years ago, might be 3000, LOL)
2) Liquid cooling, and belt driven overhead cams are great, but they offer 2
extra points of failure. Most of the engine failures I have seen on modern
engines are related to failed cam drive belts. You break one of these, its
all over, you are landing. Soon. This is usually due to a lack of preventive
maintainance, but I have seen new ones fail too. And, there is no highly
inspected aviation grade alternative, its Shucks, or the dealer.. I recently
looked at a Lycoming in the shop that had eaten one of its exhaust valve
guides, and probably the valve too. It was still running, and got the owner
back to the airport. You won't get that from an equivalent failure in a
subaru, at 5500 RPM. Holed pistons, and bent valves, are the order of the day
here. I'm not real keen on the idea of electronic ignition, every seen a
battery break a plate? 10 volts wont do good things for your spark, a magneto
driven engine dosen't care. An over-volt will fry the little black box real
quick, too.
3) Another member mentioned something about the bearing at the front of a
Lycoming. This is a very good point. An automotive engine's crank is not
subjected to much side load at all. I would think the asymetrical thrust
produced by a propeller, would put a hell of a side load on the crank, that
was never anticipated by the designer. A gear reduction would dampen this,
but I ASSume the reduction unit uses a sealed ball bearing on the output
shaft. I have seen too many dirtbike engines that spit the cage from the
crank bearing race, to be too excited over having one of these on my plane.
4) I am eagerly awaiting the introduction of a well tested, lightweight
diesel engine for aircraft, this seems like a perfect solution! Maybe I am
missing something obvious, as to why there isnt one already, but it sure
seems like the answer to me! In the meantime, I will hopefully be able to buy
a 0-360, and put it on the nose of my plane. I am accepting donations from
guys upgrading to Subarus, I will happily take your old Lycoming..He he he..
I could ramble on, but I'm not sure if there is a limit to the amount of
space I should take up here, I am brand new to this posting thing as well :)
Take care guys, and good luck on those RVS!! Kyle
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Shultz, Tim" <tim.shultz@...> Time: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:28 am PST Link
Does having the Subaru and reduction unit limit the aerobatic capability of
a RV-7?
When I took my intro builder's class, it was mentioned that prop extensions
typically limits acceptable load factors.
Is this also true for PRU's? Or am I just spreading misinformation?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "robert_paisley" <robert@...> Time: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:41 am PST Link
Hi Tim,
The PSRU does not limit aerobatics, but Jan does want a composite
prop to be used with it.
Robert Paisley
--- In RV7and7A@y..., "Shultz, Tim" <tim.shultz@i...> wrote:
> Does having the Subaru and reduction unit limit the aerobatic
capability of
> a RV-7?
> When I took my intro builder's class, it was mentioned that prop
extensions
> typically limits acceptable load factors.
> Is this also true for PRU's? Or am I just spreading misinformation?
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]