What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Why I picked Subaru.

Steve A

Well Known Member
Is smoother than Lycoming due to smaller cylinders, 7 main bearings, less displacement.

Doesn't drip oil due to better clearances and block doesn't expand/contract as much.

The Subaru has a great heater and defroster combo for cold weather climes.

Can use either 93 auto fuel vs 100 leaded. Obviously a real advantage overseas where 100 leaded is very expensive or unavailable.

No mixture control, ECM determines proper mixture.

Easier hot starts, with fuel returned to tank the hot starts are easier.

Lycoming makes a great product. Their the leader and using an Alternative/Subaru is not for everyone. I guess that's why we are building an Experimental airplane, to experiment and recreat.

One thing we can all agree one, the number one college team...LSU

Thank goodness the BCS is so endowed with intelligence to pick the perfect teams to play for the NC.

RV 7A H-6
Finishing or almost finished.
Lafayette Louisiana
 
Why I picked a Lycoming

Why I picked Subaru....
Why I picked Lycoming: Resale Value. :D

Seriously, I know I am not going to be able to fly forever and the reason I and many people choose to go with a proven powerplant is because we instinctively know that at some point we may have to sell. Basic marketing teaches us it is always best to give the customer want he wants. I know of one well made homebuilt once described in a magazine article that sports a Chevy engine. The bottom line is that airplane has been languishing on the market despite a deep reduction in asking price for well over two years now. It is only human and natural for me to contrast that undeniable reality with a first hand experience selling my stock but well maintained C-150 I put on the market and sold for top dollar several weeks later, despite those who thought I was crazy for turning down quicker and lesser offers.

I am not a gearhead...far from it. I do admire those groundbreaking individuals who are fascinated by and continue down a developmental path, remaining ever hopeful of coming up with a design that will eclipse the refined...yes refined Lycoming engine. From what I see though....it just ain't happening yet. It is not in my nature to tweak and retweak. I need somebody to boldly go where I won't go because I just wanna build and fly. Its hard enough to keep the airplane airworthy without piling on additional worry about FWF reliability any more than I have to and almost as importantly, when the time comes....worrying about turning off the overwhelming majority of potential buyers. Like it or not, perception IS reality.
 
Last edited:
I can't resist

Is smoother than Lycoming due to smaller cylinders, 7 main bearings, less displacement.

Thats nice

Doesn't drip oil due to better clearances and block doesn't expand/contract as much.

Lycomings drip oil?...Mine doesn't

The Subaru has a great heater and defroster combo for cold weather climes.

And takes forever to warm up...At least my Subaru did on my last airplane.

Can use either 93 auto fuel vs 100 leaded. Obviously a real advantage overseas where 100 leaded is very expensive or unavailable.

Exactly the same as a Lycoming then...I mean exactly!


No mixture control, ECM determines proper mixture.

Does your ECM allow for lean of peak operations...If not your losing about 1.5 GPH of fuel savings

Easier hot starts, with fuel returned to tank the hot starts are easier.

And with my purge valve on my AFP system thats exactly the same..I do have electric fuel pumps only so that may help...i don't know what a hot start issue is.

Lycoming makes a great product. Their the leader and using an Alternative/Subaru is not for everyone. I guess that's why we are building an Experimental airplane, to experiment and recreat.

Yup I did and after the Subaru tried to kill me three times I went the traditional route...This was a less then steller engine conversion though and i had to do major re-engineering to make it safe.

One thing we can all agree one, the number one college team...LSU

Hang we're not done yet..I bet your Soob conversion is heavier and your resale value won't be as high.

You have extra failure points, reduction drive, water pump, radiators that can leak, water hoses etc.

i think you probably spent about the same amout of money too.

Thank goodness the BCS is so endowed with intelligence to pick the perfect teams to play for the NC.

America is the only place in the world that calls football something other than a game played with a round ball and played with the foot!

RV 7A H-6
Finishing or almost finished.
Lafayette Louisiana

I do agree I can't get parts at NAPA...

Tell me why a Soob is so great again?....:)

Have fun with your airplane...If your happy then so am I..:)

Frank
 
Why I picked Subaru???

Ouch! I'm closer to agreeing on the Subie (I drive two of them and love them, but fly a Lycoming) than I am to agreeing on that last part!


I guess you are saying you chose Subaru engines in the toughest environment possible... in your car. Further speculation on my part assumes your wife's car is powered by Subaru. Obviously you want a dependable engine for someone you love, and don't want to break down in a dark dangerous neighborhood. I guess I can live with that.

Regarding the last part, I see OSU is picked in the top ten and only has two seniors graduating. As ESPN said the other day, the start of college football is only months away.

RV 7A H-6
Finishing
Lafayette, La.
 
Ouch! I'm closer to agreeing on the Subie (I drive two of them and love them, but fly a Lycoming) than I am to agreeing on that last part!


I guess you are saying you chose Subaru engines in the toughest environment possible... in your car. Further speculation on my part assumes your wife's car is powered by Subaru. Obviously you want a dependable engine for someone you love, and don't want to break down in a dark dangerous neighborhood. I guess I can live with that.

Regarding the last part, I see OSU is picked in the top ten and only has two seniors graduating. As ESPN said the other day, the start of college football is only months away.

RV 7A H-6
Finishing
Lafayette, La.

Then why not choose Hyundai, or some other car manufacturer that believes their car engines are good enough in "the toughest environment" to give them a ten year, or 100,000 mile warranty?
 
One thing we can all agree one, the number one college team...LSU

We got your defensive coach as our head coach. Bo Pelini dropped LSU like a bad habbit when he had the chance to be head coach here. We'll see in a few seasons who is on top. BOfense rules.

GO BIG RED!

On your choice of engines? One word, and Rick6A said it. Resale.
 
Last edited:
Will the Koreans learn from Subaru?

Maybe if Hyundai could learn from Subaru who knew that their engines could end up powering airplanes, then maybe they could redesign them to accept the unique loads imparted on them from aircraft propellers while they are running at over 5000 continuous RPM's. I'm glad that at least Subaru took this approach, and maybe the Koreans won't let this market get away either. Hopefully soon you'll be able fly for a little while behind either of these great engines!
 
I partially agree with you.

LSU IS the undisputed #1 college football team.

....


But I'll stick with my Lycoming, thank you.
 
Regardless of what engine someone chooses, I find it baffling that people make choices on their homebuilt airplane based on perceived resale value. I've always considered this a project that I am building for me, and I really don't care what someone else thinks of its value. The true value in the plane is what I see in it, so the choices I make are going to focus around what I want, not what I think someone else might want sometime in the unspecified future.

If I wanted an airplane with resale value as a top consideration, I'd buy a Cessna.

Now having said that, the few Subaru powered RVs and Glastars I've seen sold do not seem to be selling for any less amount of money than those with a Lycoming. They may take longer to sell, though, due to the lesser number of people that may want to buy a Subaru powered airplane. I'm not really convinced there is a less resale value in a Subaru powered aircraft, but there may be lesser market interest.

-Dj
 
Regardless of what engine someone chooses, I find it baffling that people make choices on their homebuilt airplane based on perceived resale value. I've always considered this a project that I am building for me, and I really don't care what someone else thinks of its value. The true value in the plane is what I see in it, so the choices I make are going to focus around what I want, not what I think someone else might want sometime in the unspecified future.

If I wanted an airplane with resale value as a top consideration, I'd buy a Cessna.
-Dj

Like so many aspect of homebuilding, engine choice is a very personal thing and usually given long consideration. As for resale value, I would guess you are planning on keeping your plane for many years. I am too, but I realize I may be forced to give it up at some time. I probably have quite a few years on you. At least when I bought my engine, the resale was MUCH different. That was one of many factors I considered. It shouldn't surprise you that that is a more important thing to some than it is to you. And I don't disrespect your lack of concern here, either.

I considered Subaru's long and hard. I have two of them in the garage, one turbocharged/intercooled that is an absolute hoot to drive. And this is from a guy who has had his share of Jags and Porsches. But if I had gone with Subaru, I would probably be grounded until I made some extensive changes to the drive unit. I am very happy with my Lycoming.

There are people out there who are building PLASTIC AIRPLANES! Some RV's even have tip-up canopies. Too each his own, be happy and fly safe...

Bob Kelly
 
Why I make my choices.

Bottom line. With all the choices we make when building our airplane there is one main factor that sometimes seems to be set aside. This factor is relevant in all areas of our build. It is my main consideration when making any decision related to my plane.

Are you willing to bet your life on the choices you make. Are you willing to extend that to your family.

Subarus are excellently engineered engines and automobiles.

I built my airplane with a Lycoming.

ted
 
......If I wanted an airplane with resale value as a top consideration, I'd buy a Cessna.

Now having said that, the few Subaru powered RVs and Glastars I've seen sold do not seem to be selling for any less amount of money than those with a Lycoming. They may take longer to sell, though, due to the lesser number of people that may want to buy a Subaru powered airplane. I'm not really convinced there is a less resale value in a Subaru powered aircraft, but there may be lesser market interest.

-Dj

Ha! I like your optimism.

I jumped in on a whim. I can jump out on a whim. What the heck, here goes, yahoo! Let's see if your optimism is justified. I've been itching to build an 8 anyhow.

As of today, my flying project is for sale for about half of what I have in it - $35,000. Will deliver most anywhere in the country and will ship to Europe for cost.

Standard homebuilt sales contract applies, you sue me, you pay my legal fees. :)
 
It is interesting that some people here like to bring this thing up here "would you trust your family's life flying behind ***** (fill in the non-Lycoming engine type)".

These same people seem to think they will be immune to harm because Lycoming is stamped on the valve covers and happily fly at night or over the rocks or IFR. These are high risk activities to me.

We've had 6 people killed in 3 crashes over the last 3 months here after 2 core engine failures (certified engines) and one power loss over the mountains in single engined aircraft. You and your family will almost certainly be dead if this ever happens no matter what engine stops running. Your options are almost nil because of your pre-flight decision. Your total faith and indeed life are in the hands of that engine up front.

The bigger risk is probably from what conditions and terrain you fly in and over, not the choice of engines.

And no, I won't fly with you in your Lycoming powered RV over mountains, IFR or at night nor do I do this in my Subaru powered RV. Most people never think about how much harder it is to deal with emergencies when you can't see anything in cloud or at night- let's say a fuel leak, smoke in the cockpit, complete electrical failure or engine failure.

Feel free to play the lottery if you wish. I choose not to because as a professional engine builder for almost 30 years, I know that anything mechanical or electrical can fail. I want good vis and suitable terrain below if it ever does happen.

We all have a different view of acceptable risks but I submit that once you have a real scare or really think about these things, your views will change.

Next time your wife asks you if this is safe as you launch into the night over unlit or mountainous terrain- tell her the truth- well honey, if the engine stops, we are probably both dead.

Not trying to paint doom and gloom here, just asking people to think about how they fly. One of the guys killed here was a well known business and aviation fixture, highly experienced and it is sad to see a great guy like that and his 2 passengers go like this. Something similar can happen to you.
 
Ha! I like your optimism.

I jumped in on a whim. I can jump out on a whim. What the heck, here goes, yahoo! Let's see if your optimism is justified. I've been itching to build an 8 anyhow.

As of today, my flying project is for sale for about half of what I have in it - $35,000. Will deliver most anywhere in the country and will ship to Europe for cost.

Standard homebuilt sales contract applies, you sue me, you pay my legal fees. :)

Joke, I hope!
 
Are you willing to bet your life on the choices you make. Are you willing to extend that to your family.
ted

Hi Ted,
I had two emergency landings due to problems with my Lycoming O320, and several other lesser problems with it as well (costing me a few thousand dollars in repair costs to boot), so I can personally attest that Lycomings aren't a golden bullet. My family are in fact encouraging me to put in something other than a Lycoming in the one I am building. I'm sure we could show tons of statistics to show whatever we wanted to with respects to engine choice, but my personal experience is making Lycoming a third or fourth choice rather than a first one.

I spent OSH 2007 asking every single "traditional" aircraft engine manufacturer I could find if I could run mogas with 10% ethanol in their engine. Not a single one would say it was okay, even the ones that allowed "straight" mogas (like Superior).

There are lots of other reasons as well, but they are all leading me towards the Eggenfellner package. it is entirely possible I might be making a bad choice, but from my perspective it seems to be the best one available to me at present.

-Dj
 
Regardless of what engine someone chooses, I find it baffling that people make choices on their homebuilt airplane based on perceived resale value.
-Dj

Baffling? Why would you find it baffling that people build an airplane with resale value in mind? If you don't sell it, your family will. The facts are the plane WILL be sold. Building it without resale value in mind is baffling to me. JMHO.
 
Baffling? Why would you find it baffling that people build an airplane with resale value in mind? Where you sell it, or your family sells it, the plane WILL be sold. Building it without resale value in mind is baffling to me. JMHO.

Well, when I buy a car, I buy it because of the value it brings to me while using it. When I upgrade my computer, I do it because I want the use of the better graphics card or the larger hard drive space. When I buy dessert, I do it for the pleasure it brings me for eating it.

I'm building an aircraft because of the "educational and recreational" value it brings to me, and the use and fun I will get out of it once it is flying. Why would I ever want to spend this much time and effort to build this airplane around someone else's wants and desires? There are enough things in this life that I have to do for someone else, this one is for me! :)

-Dj, being purely selfish when it comes to -my- airplane
 
Agreed - if I was ultimately worried about resale value, I would be out there right now trying to find the new owner of my airplane and asking them how they would like me to build it and instrument it for them.

I'm not building it for them - I'm building it for me. I'll fly the heck out of it, it will make me happy and life will be good, and I will be content with whatever check I happen to get if I should decide to do something else and sell the plane. Circumstances change and you can never predict where you're going to be 10 years down the road - so I'm living in the here and now, and that means building the airplane like it's not ever going to belong to anyone else.
 
Agreed - if I was ultimately worried about resale value, I would be out there right now trying to find the new owner of my airplane and asking them how they would like me to build it and instrument it for them.

I'm not building it for them - I'm building it for me. I'll fly the heck out of it, it will make me happy and life will be good, and I will be content with whatever check I happen to get if I should decide to do something else and sell the plane. Circumstances change and you can never predict where you're going to be 10 years down the road - so I'm living in the here and now, and that means building the airplane like it's not ever going to belong to anyone else.

I'm with Greg on this one. It seems like this is a big issue for the Lycoming RV guys. I sink 2000 hours of my life building one of these planes for me not for someone else. While the time may come where I might have to give one or both up, I'll be patient to find the right buyer and hopefully recover some money. In the meantime I'm going to enjoy flying them. Neither RV even has nav lights!

I didn't buy a BMW or a new hangar to make money, I bought them to help enjoy life- which is half over at this point for me. You only live once. Better enjoy it while you can.
 
Immunity!! This isn't aTV show

Ross,

Just because I choose to fly behind a Lycoming doesn't mean I feel I'm immune to harm or that the Lycoming is as Dj said the "Golden Bullet" (not really sure what that means).

Nor does it change the fact that we are participating in an inherently dangerous activity. The other factors you point out are regardless of engine choice.

When I stated are you willing to extend that to your family I meant them having to deal with the ramifications of losing you.

Flying is risky yet we want to do it. Just went to a safety seminar last night and it gave the statistic of flying is just as risky as riding a motorcycle. Every time we get in an airplane we are betting our life on that airplane and it's components. As builders we get to choose those components.

I choose to do it behind a Lycoming. It is designed and built for that application alone. The Subaru was designed and built as a ground transportation powerplant only. Can it be adapted for airplane use, yes. Is it an excellent design engine, yes. Does Subaru endorse it for an airplane application, I doubt it.

I'm not trying to attack you for your choices as they are yours to make. I'm not trying to put down those of you who elect to use alternative powerplants. Just pointing out that everything we do building our airplanes we are betting our lives on.

Remember we are all giving opinions here, you have yours based on your experience, I have mine. You stated you're a profesional engine builder, if you wouldn't mind please elaborate. What kinds? What applications? If you feel uncomfortable with that on the board please PM me.

ted
 
Baffling? Why would you find it baffling that people build an airplane with resale value in mind? If you don't sell it, your family will. The facts are the plane WILL be sold. Building it without resale value in mind is baffling to me. JMHO.

First, I haven't made a decision on what engine I'll use and have 3 or so years before I do. I am looking at alternatives.
Second, I too, find it baffling why other folks care how I spend my money. And I'm not too concerned about what my family can sell my airplane for when I'm gone. Obiously if I was concerned about leaving an inheritance, I wouldn't be building an airplane.:rolleyes:
And lastly, I don't understand why you declare "the plane WILL be sold" :confused: It seams most alternative engine naysayers believe it will end up in a smoking hole! :eek:
 
And lastly, I don't understand why you declare "the plane WILL be sold" :confused: It seams most alternative engine naysayers believe it will end up in a smoking hole! :eek:

I said it before, and I'll say it again; "One way or another it will be sold." Maybe as scrap, but it WILL be sold. :D

I certainly hope no one every makes a "smokin hole" again, unless they are in a parachute.;) We have lost too many good pilots since I have started flying, and I don't want anyone to get hurt. Maybe it's a generational thing. I think (JMHO) it is very short sighted not to consider resale when you are spending this kind of money on an airplane. This is a major purchase for most builders. If you want to buy a Subbie knock yourself out. From what I've seen up close they are okay. You don't need my blessing, go for it. :) It is JMHO that resale should be a consideration for any major durable good purchase. Subbie away!

Rotax, (A division of Bombardier, multi-billion $$ company) just SB'ed a bunch of gear boxes which grounded the old ones, EGG is on GEN3 gearbox (with precious few running hours in the field) which grounded Gen1's & Gen2's. The Chevy conversion guys have always had reduction problems, ect., ect., ect.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?
 
Last edited:
Falling Parts?

...Second, I too, find it baffling why other folks care how I spend my money. And I'm not too concerned about what my family can sell my airplane for when I'm gone.

Because we have a responsibility to the people we fly over to insure that car parts and carplanes don't fall on their heads! Alternative engines are called Continental and Franklin. Car engines are extreme on the experimental scale.

Flying is not a right and with the attitude that any of us can endanger others because we choose to experiment with something that is IMHO, more expensive, unsafe and less reliable than what Vans recommends only adds to the public perception that the aviation community is ARROGANT!
 
Ted,

And I hope that Ross doesn't mind me answering very briefly to your post, but, to be frank, I am getting weary of the Sube naysayers and aggressive (to me, but I'm a sensitive guy :) ) posts by certain traditional engine owners, who have never even in some cases even bothered to look at alternative engines. If you want to know about Ross and his experience with alternative engines, may I respectfully suggest that you go to his website, and review the extensive work he has being doing with Subaru installations. Ross has tremendous experience in his field, and his research in alternative engines is a great plus for the experimental aircraft community. We are fortunate he continues to post.

Similarly with the unnamed geico266, whoever you are. Please do not persist in stating that resale value is a 'must' consideration and that those who don't are shortsighted. We are all adults and make our own decisions, so please desist with the condemnations. I see that geico266 seems to be in the business of buying and selling experimental aircraft, so there may be other reasons behind those unfortunate posts.

Allan
 
experimental

We are building experimental aircraft. People are entitled to, and I hope they do, experiment. It is only by pushing the envelope that you move forward. I applaud the folks that try new things, and I think that engine development is one of those things that the aviation community sorely needs. I heard some of these same kind of negative arguments about glass panels a few years back.

The subaru is a nice engine, and, as I understand it, was originally developed as a helicopter engine (don't remember where I heard that). It's going to have some weaknesses based upon the engineering choices in its design, just like a Lycoming will and does.

That said, I'm not going to get a subaru. It's just too heavy for me. If it weighed 100 pounds lighter, then I probably would.
 
I used to fly over the mountains at night all the time as well as over rough terrain in my old Bellanca Citabria and still do every now and then in my RV6. In all reality if you have an engine failure over the mountains or rough terrain it is unlikely that you will find a good landing spot that is guaranteed to be survivable with no injuries in any RV even during the daytime in most cases!! Because of this I ALWAYS fly with a parachute at all times and will bail out of the plane before riding it down at night time, and most likely will do the same over any rough terrain (especially wooded forests)...after all, the plane is guaranteed to be a total and most likely unsalvagable wreck if the engine ever fails over such terrain, so it is WAY smarter to just bail out and descend down by parachute rather than attempting to make a blind landing in the plane (I have a jettisonable tip-up canopy on my RV-6 which makes bailing out possible, plus have skydiving experience). Of course bailing out is NOT possible if the engine failure happens on takeoff or landing due to being too low to the ground (which sadly is the case most of the time), but such occurances can be mostly avoided by winding up the airspeed down low on takeoff before climbing out so that you can potentially trade the airspeed for a decent altitude gain in order to setup for a good return deadstick landing to the runway (not possible on very short grass airstrips though), and by keeping your approaches on landing as short as possible so that you can always make the end of the runway on a deadstick landing if the engine quits while on approach (NO mile long downwind approachs like 90% of the morons out there do!!).
 
Just suggesting people evaluate their choices and to be realistic and maybe let those who fly with you make a more informed choice themselves. When asked, will you quote stats or tell them that if this engine fails over the rocks we are dead?

I don't have a problem with people flying behind their engine of choice or even flying over the rocks at night single engined- as I said we all assess risk differently. I'm not saying I'm right- just saying think about it.

The Sube does not care that it is 10,000 feet in the air, It doesn't know any better. Whether Fuji endorses their engines to be put in aircraft is irrelevant. They obviously work with an estimated 250,000 or so flight hours to date.

These engines are rock solid and the same things that bring them down cause most certified engine power losses- fuel and fire issues. Much better PSRUs are being built today than even 5 years ago and that is something we HAVE needed.

I think an RV airframe, properly assembled and maintained is one of the safest, strongest and most reliable planes available. I don't think it is going to let me down.

I've been building performance automotive engines for a living since I was 18 and ran Racetech Engineering for 13 years. I built my own flow bench and engine dynomometer. I built road racing engines, transmissions, differentials, custom turbo systems, aerodynamics and chassis and raced them, winning 7 regional championships between my own and customer cars.

My engine development program on turbocharged Toyota 2TC engines included work with piston design, port and valve revisions, exhaustive flow bench and dyno work, cam, crankshaft, bearing studies, turbocharger, intercooling and header studies and intake studies. The result was a reliable 350+ hp from a 1702cc pushrod 2 valve engine which would last the entire season of racing between overhauls. The engine was a fraction of the cost of competitors' big six cylinder atmo engines. After winning 6 championships with these engines in 4 different chassis we packed up. No real competition or challenge. It was poetic justice after the snickers we received from the rich guys when we showed up at the track with our "itty bitty" 4 bangers still using stock block, rods and crank. They stopped laughing pretty quickly.

I've consulted on many automotive powered aircraft and helped people match turbochargers for them successfully (at no charge). Last year I was involved with Mike Dacey's Questair Venture in Sport Class at Reno (3rd overall Gold) and will back with the team in '08 with a lot more speed.

I've tinkered with Continental and Lycoming heads on my flow bench years ago.

Presently my company supplies programmable EMSs for automotive, military and experimental aviation. We've been doing this for the last 14 years. Our systems have been used to set numerous speed records, race wins in the Baja 1000 and 500 Class 7 twice and SCCA GT3 national championship in 2006.

We hope to add Reno to that list sometime.

We just finished parts for Suzuki G10 and G13 EFI conversions.

We supply Titan Aircraft with EMSs for the Suzuki V6 Mini Merlin FF packages and other FF vendors as well.

Recently we've been developing a bolt on EFI kit for Rotax 912 and conducting ground and soon flight testing of that.

Other current projects are systems for GM LS V8s and Ford 4.6 V8s for aviation and automotive applications.

I've had the pleasure to be associated with legends like Les Davenport (Davenport Machine), Jake Raby (Raby's Aircooled Technology) and Andy Pearson (Specialty Engineering)- some of the most awesome engine guys in North America.

So yep, I have some experience in the engine, EFI, EI aviation world.

Sorry if it sounds like an infomercial but you asked...

I love airplanes, engines, turbos and speed. I can't image a much better job than this.:) I just need more time to fly.
 
Last edited:
Rotax, (A division of Bombardier, multi-billion $$ company) just SB'ed a bunch of gear boxes which grounded the old ones, EGG is on GEN3 gearbox (with precious few running hours in the field) which grounded Gen1's & Gen2's. The Chevy conversion guys have always had reduction problems, ect., ect., ect.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

If you stop talking about PSRUs I won't mention the numerous ADs, crank recalls, forgotten and wrong parts on Lycoming engines (Textron, a multi billion dollar company) over the last 6 years. Deal?

All powerplants have their warts and nothing is perfect. This discussion has little to do with why people choose Subarus. It has become a toy for some people's amusement I suppose.

I like Jan Eggenfellner's question- have you nay sayers ever flown one?
 
Last edited:
His name is there, Larry Geiger, as is other info.


E-gads I've been outed! :eek:

No one here has ever asked for my name. Would you like my phone number too?

I never said resale was a "MUST" consideration, I said it; "Should be a consideration". IMHO If you don't want to put any "weight" on that portion of the equations fine, your call. But it should be in the equation.

I'm not a neigh sayer of Subbies, I'm just looking at the facts, and weighing them for my own. I guess you all can do that, but I can't?

I do buy & sell experimental aircraft. Guilty as charged. I fly them, evaluate them, debug them, fix them, resell them when they are brought up to my standards. Seems to me a guy that does this would know the value of what he is selling and how the engine choice affects resale. If resale has "weight" in your calculations for an engine choice, well then. Don't shoot the messenger!

Like I said before, Subbie away! GO FOR IT!
 
Last edited:
Resale: Subbie vs Lycoming

For a long period in the experimental airplane's history, you could not sell an experimental. No way no how. I think it is the ultimate tribute to Van's and Lycoming that they have reached a gold standard in value. In fact, I can honestly say, that Van's has really taken the robustness out of used Cessna's and Mooney's market. This is because they go together so easily and look so good. That being said, Subaru on an RV is in my mind, more like the historical experimental. Until more are flying, and the internet is full of website's of happy builders with glowing testimonials, will their value hold up better.

Eggenfellner and the Subaru "movement" is like Van's was twenty years ago. Van's did not earn their fabulous reputation overnight. They had setbacks and slowly built the great company they are today. I think Van's proves that you don't need a huge corporation like Textron backing Lycoming to make a great product that eventually wins a niche in the marketplace.

At this point, I look at my plane as a luxury. If I sell at a loss, so be it. I purchased a Sun Ultra Sparc workstation for my business, it cost more than my house. Five years later, I donated it to a high school so computer nerds could learn UNIX. It was one big tax write-off. It is because I am a risk taker and a few of my "risks" paid off that I can afford to build an experimental plane.

IMHO you can't expect a plane to be an "investment". Look at all the yuppies building McMansions who thought they would flip them and use the profit to retire. WRONG. The subprime debacle is a perfect example of people confusing a house where you live, raise a family, get to know the neighbors with an investment. My plane project is where my mind goes when I have a down moment. I initially spent way too much time trying to plan everything out. Now I guess I am better at the visualization and work problems on the beach, in the living room with my bride talking to me, at my daughter's soccer game. Like a lot of people, if I was paid my normal consulting rate for all the time and effort I put into 337SA, it would be the first five hundred thousand dollar RV. That would be what I have in it. I don't think anyone has sold their's RV for that.

We got your defensive coach as our head coach. Bo Pelini dropped LSU like a bad habbit when he had the chance to be head coach here. We'll see in a few seasons who is on top. BOfense rules.

GO BIG RED!


Regarding Bo Pelini, I cried (like Hillary) when I learned the Huskers hired him. Now that is a good reason to be emotional. He is a very talented guy but Nebraska is a good fit for him. Great tradition and like Louisiana, he will get all the in-state kids and many from Texas, Colorado etc. He is not in the SEC (like that rat Nick Saban) and therefore not a direct competitor with LSU. It happens. We lost Jimbo Fisher (former LSU off coordinator) who is also a genius to Florida State. Gary Crowson came in to replace him and I like the result.

Rv 7A H-6
Lafayette, LA
Finishing stuff
 
Regarding Bo Pelini, I cried (like Hillary) when I learned the Huskers hired him.

Now, that is funny right there. I about sprayed Morgan & Coke all over the puter.

Did you know Bo was here before he went to LSU? He was not offer the head coach job and he quit. We are SO lucky to get him back.:)
 
If you stop talking about PSRUs I won't mention the numerous ADs, crank recalls, forgotten and wrong parts on Lycoming engines (Textron, a multi billion dollar company) over the last 6 years. Deal?

Ross, the systems which bring dow the statistical disproportionately high failure rate is from causes, which would bring down an aircraft engine IF AIRCRAFT ENGINES HAD THOSE SYSTEMS.

For example, the subaru ecu goinging into limp home mode and getting a pilot slowly into a mountain....if a lycoming had a subaru ecu, poorly adapted to plane use it would fail too. Instead it has a mechanical, bullet proof injection or carb system, refined of MILLIONS of hours and decades of time.

As to the crank AD, the four cylinder AD's were covered by lycoming...see Rhonda's post. In one case the part was free, in the other it was 2800, but did not have to be replaced till the next rebuild.

If the ECU, or the PSRU, or the triple boost pump, 8 relay 5 TPDT switches fail, all of which are required for these crazy systems, is that the same?

When a mixture lever fails...it is supposed to be spring loaded to go rich, a throttle spring loaded to go full open, a P-Lead, if it breaks will not even make the engine wink.

This is because aircraft engines were designed with the understanding that THE WHOLE SYSTEM works or people die. Gee simplicity and elegance seems pretty good then.

I guess the superior speed and fuel and weight are just gravy.
 
We just rehash the same stuff guys. It's a waste of time.

Fly a Lycoming if that is your choice, let the others make their own choices. Clearly we all have a few brain cells left to ponder the pros and cons. Many of us just don't see that Lycoming has QC under control after the crank fiascos. I really hoped the new guy in charge was going to put an end to this stuff.

More problems with wrong parts being installed, cross threaded stud holes, oil passages not getting drilled at the factory. They've been building the same engines for 40 years and they can't even do this right- pretty poor in my view for a $25K certified engine. Do they even use a checklist when they machine and assemble these? Evidently not.

Certified does not guarantee quality as I've said before, it only provides a paper trail to identify which batch of parts or engines was affected when there is a SB or AD issued. Frank Thielert has stated that today's automotive QC, process control and validation processes easily exceed those of certified engine manufacturers. He should know, he's involved in both sides of this.

You can stick your heads in the sand and pretend that all is good and that heads never crack, cranks and rods never break, valves don't stick or that compression ever drops out on a Lycoming but we all know that these things do happen fairly regularly in real life. These are the warts of these engines. If the Lycoming was a perfect engine, despite the high cost, there would be little or no market for other engines.

The Subaru converters are turning out better stuff each year, Lycomings are getting worse of late.

As they say on MythBusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own":)
 
Last edited:
I'm with Greg on this one. It seems like this is a big issue for the Lycoming RV guys. I sink 2000 hours of my life building one of these planes for me not for someone else. While the time may come where I might have to give one or both up, I'll be patient to find the right buyer and hopefully recover some money. In the meantime I'm going to enjoy flying them. Neither RV even has nav lights!

I didn't buy a BMW or a new hangar to make money, I bought them to help enjoy life- which is half over at this point for me. You only live once. Better enjoy it while you can.

Not all Lycoming guys (OK, clone in this case). Otherwise what you wrote describes me as well.

This is tangential, but it seems to me that the Subaru ECM is probably overkill for an aero application. I used a chip to turn off a bunch of stuff on the OBD1 Ford computer running the 5.0 in my old truck (emissions-related, mostly) and to fine tune for better driveability, but an add-on chip really isn't a very elegant solution. My hangar neighbor with an Egg H6 pointed out to me that the one issue he has with his engine is high fuel burns at large throttle openings because the engine apparently goes open loop and defaults to a rich burn mode. Ross, I suppose one of your ECMs might do a better job at this?

Oh yeah, I've flown behind that Subaru. It's really nice, and as pointed out by others, the heater rocks in the wintertime.
 
We just rehash the same stuff guys. It's a waste of time.

Fly a Lycoming if that is your choice, let the others make their own choices. Clearly we all have a few brain cells left to ponder the pros and cons. Many of us just don't see that Lycoming has QC under control after the crank fiascos. I really hoped the new guy in charge was going to put an end to this stuff.

More problems with wrong parts being installed and oil passages not getting drilled at the factory. They've been building the same engines for 40 years and they can't even do this right- pretty poor in my view for a $25K certified engine. Do they even use a checklist when they machine and assemble these? Evidently not.

The Subaru converters are turning out better stuff each year, Lycomings are getting worse of late.

As they say on MythBusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own":)

Ross,

Jacanard makes 8 or 10 really good points here. Wish you would do us the honor of addressing 2 or 3.
 
Not all Lycoming guys (OK, clone in this case). Otherwise what you wrote describes me as well.

This is tangential, but it seems to me that the Subaru ECM is probably overkill for an aero application. I used a chip to turn off a bunch of stuff on the OBD1 Ford computer running the 5.0 in my old truck (emissions-related, mostly) and to fine tune for better driveability, but an add-on chip really isn't a very elegant solution. My hangar neighbor with an Egg H6 pointed out to me that the one issue he has with his engine is high fuel burns at large throttle openings because the engine apparently goes open loop and defaults to a rich burn mode. Ross, I suppose one of your ECMs might do a better job at this?

Oh yeah, I've flown behind that Subaru. It's really nice, and as pointed out by others, the heater rocks in the wintertime.

I'm surprised you are still with us!:rolleyes: I'm glad that a few Lycoming fliers have sampled a Sube and have something nice to say.:)

Quite right. The latest Egg engines don't use closed loop which with narrow band sensors, would run the engine too lean (14.7 to 1) and probably melt it down at high power settings. The OEs carefully avoid this for a reason so the ECUs are not screwed with. In aviation, the power settings are high enough that the ECU rarely operates in closed loop.

The latest units run conservatively to ensure best engine reliability and power- Job 1 and 2 for aviation. Experimentation has been done with targeted AFRs vs. power using wideband sensors and closed loop like most of the very latest OE auto systems do- even at WOT. This is very cool and works wonderfully but depends on the sensor living- maybe with a diet of 100LL. Much testing would be required to validate chosen AFRs for various power settings and their impact on engine longevity so this has not been implemented at this time.

Those of us building time on Subes in flight hope to share some data on this in a few years on how lean can we run without impacting longevity. Concerns are exhaust valve/ seat life and piston integrity at high EGTs. There are different valve and seat materials used on various Subaru models so more study is needed here. Too bad we don't have a direct line to the Fuji engineers in Japan. We have to do things the hard way. This is a disadvantage of working with auto engines in aircraft- but a huge learning experience and very interesting work.
 
Ross,

Jacanard makes 8 or 10 really good points here. Wish you would do us the honor of addressing 2 or 3.

Maybe Jan can step in here. I don't follow what he has been doing with the latest packages but I think he is now using two manual switches for the HP pumps. This is what I use. Simpler, lighter, more reliable. Both on for T/O and in the pattern.

Of course if something is not there, it can't fail (PSRU). I think anyone agrees with that reasoning. The Sube needs a PSRU so we have to try to make them as reliable as the PSRUs used in WW2 vintage radial or V12 engines. I'm impressed with the latest Autoflight PSRUs coming out of NZ and a new one about to be tested in the US and Holland. MPS is also about to start testing their new unit to replace the older model. Sube guys who want to DIY will soon have some better and more tested choices than what we had in the past.

The throttle on my RV10 and our Rotax kits are spring loaded to WOT. What if that spring breaks though with a non-rigid cable? Is a spring more reliable than a cable? You want to be careful on the ground if something bad happens to this system. As you see, all solutions have their drawbacks which must be weighed. So we add two springs and a rigid cable.

The OE Sube ECU used on the EZ30 would never likely encounter a limp mode in flight like some earlier Sube ECUs which were incorrectly wired without speed sensor inputs. There is no limp mode in the current ECUs, rather default values to ensure the engine continues to run at near full power in the event of even simultaneous, multiple failures of engine sensors, including TPS, MAP, IAT, CLT and crank synch signal.

Many of the perceived weak areas have been identified and addressed. Even PT6s fail and we'll never be as reliable as one of these but that is the ultimate goal.
 
Last edited:
Mike,

I learn something every day from this forum

thanks,

Allan

One day I just ran the cursor over the entire screen, and was amazed at how many times the cursor told me-----the change to a hand-----that there was a link there.

And, different screen pages have different links.

Try the big VAF logo top left.

I still dont know if I have found all the things here.:)
 
Instead it has a mechanical, bullet proof injection or carb system, refined of MILLIONS of hours and decades of time.

For what it is worth, it is one of those "bullet proof carburateurs" that caused one of my engine outages. Fortunately I was only a few feet above the runway at the time, landed without incident, and all I needed was a tow back to the hangar. If it failed five minutes earlier I would have been in a world of hurt.


If the ECU, or the PSRU, or the triple boost pump, 8 relay 5 TPDT switches fail, all of which are required for these crazy systems, is that the same?

To the best of my knowledge, the Egg package does not have any 8 relay, 5 TPDT switches or other esoteric oddball gizmos, just standard single or double pole switches, relays, and contactors just like any other aircraft. My electrical system will be pretty much a standard Bob Nuckolls setup, nothing special.

It does have a PSRU, and it does use two redundant fuel pumps (I'm not really sure what you mean by "triple boost") with two manual switches as rv6ejguy mentions above.

-Dj
 
Last edited:
In the spirit of the original post, here are some reasons why I chose an Eggenfellner Subaru package for my airplane.

IN MY OPINION ONLY, here are some items that I perceive to be advantages
(others may believe some of these are disadvantages or may not agree
with me at all):

- Electronic ignition, computer controlled timing and "knock" sensing
- Fuel injection
- Water cooled (no shock cooling)
- Significantly reduced vibration (smoother feeling engine)
- Single lever engine control (versus separate mixture and throttle)
* Note there is still a separate control for prop pitch for both engines
* No primer required for the Subaru
* No carb heat required for the Subaru
- Reduced chance of fuel vapor lock due to the full flow return fuel system (keeps the fuel cooler)
- Little to no oil consumption (also, no "dirty belly" after flight)
- Quieter
- Ability to burn autofuel (and potentially autofuel containing ethanol
if the airframe fuel system is designed and implemented properly)
- Reduced chance of CO in cockpit (heater works from the water cooling,
not associated with the exhaust system, which also makes it safer and
more effective in my opinion)
- In theory, significantly cheaper overhaul (as far as I know none have
had to be overhauled yet that I have read about anyways, and I am unsure
of the cost or frequency of overhauling the prop gear reduction unit)
- From talking to my insurance company, no difference in the cost of the
policy whether I install a Lyc or Eggenfellner Subaru (however, there is
an increased cost if I "roll my own" engine package)

Bottom line, for me it is just a personal preference. There are
valid opinions on both sides of this topic.

-Dj
 
Say it ain't true David! What will we have to argue about if you go Lycoming?

The problem after a few years flying the same airplane is an urge to move on to something different. That's mostly what it's about. I've been on that flight plan before.

But like Ross says about being at the half-life point, there may not be time to do it all again as I'm considerably beyond that marker. Besides, my wife told me this evening she likes seeing and hearing this airplane in the air. She says it is really cute. :)

It's been a challenge getting it to where it is and if GEN3 proves to be as solid as the engine, it will outlast me. Maybe it's time to grow up and stop thinking about another airplane.
 
Maybe Jan can step in here. I don't follow what he has been doing with the latest packages but I think he is now using two manual switches for the HP pumps. This is what I use. Simpler, lighter, more reliable. Both on for T/O and in the pattern.

Of course if something is not there, it can't fail (PSRU). I think anyone agrees with that reasoning. The Sube needs a PSRU so we have to try to make them as reliable as the PSRUs used in WW2 vintage radial or V12 engines. I'm impressed with the latest Autoflight PSRUs coming out of NZ and a new one about to be tested in the US and Holland. MPS is also about to start testing their new unit to replace the older model. Sube guys who want to DIY will soon have some better and more tested choices than what we had in the past.

The throttle on my RV10 and our Rotax kits are spring loaded to WOT. What if that spring breaks though with a non-rigid cable? Is a spring more reliable than a cable? You want to be careful on the ground if something bad happens to this system. As you see, all solutions have their drawbacks which must be weighed. So we add two springs and a rigid cable.

The OE Sube ECU used on the EZ30 would never likely encounter a limp mode in flight like some earlier Sube ECUs which were incorrectly wired without speed sensor inputs. There is no limp mode in the current ECUs, rather default values to ensure the engine continues to run at near full power in the event of even simultaneous, multiple failures of engine sensors, including TPS, MAP, IAT, CLT and crank synch signal.

Many of the perceived weak areas have been identified and addressed. Even PT6s fail and we'll never be as reliable as one of these but that is the ultimate goal.

Ross, I am not totally spun up on the latest engines but I do know the story on the fuel pumps. The original design had a fail over relay that turned on the second FP if pressure dropped below a preset value. That system is out because we had a problem with the pressure switch, it proved to be most unreliable and I found myself with both pumps on when I did not want them both on. Some of the early, early guys like Charlie Walker never had the system and always managed the pumps with individual switches, no automatic stuff. It is simple and works.

My current technique is to operate with one pump as both on draws about 8-9 more amps and you sure don't need two 70 psi pumps over-working the pressure relief system. If the engine burps anytime, one switch is moved and the ECU and backup FP are powered right now from the back up battery. The system works. The primary ECU circuit tripped an EXBUS poly fuse one day climbing through 6000 feet and the engine just died. At the time I had no idea why the engine quit. Moving that one switch brought it back to life immediately. Gary Newsted calls it the Bus Master Switch, I call it the BBAT switch. Needles to say, ECU primary power now has a dedicated 15 amp circuit breaker instead of the poly fuse 9. EXBUS is cool but it does have its limitations. We had an issue with the 02 sensor heaters with the H6, that's what caused the trip. I think the new ECU has just one sensor so it probably is not an issue anymore.
 
Stay with it David. We value your insights as a regular flier of Jan's products. I probably shouldn't have started my RV10. What a ton of work the second one has been. I'm a slave to it. Gotta work on it every day.

The mount is painted and ready to go on with the nose gear. The engine is just waiting the for the heads. Subaru has been great looking up and providing any part I need- one day service on almost all the parts and the EG33 is not even a common engine.

To all those who have PM'd me on the Sube subject, thanks for your kind words. Many are open minded here on VAF with regards to auto engines after all.

Follow our progress, successes and failures as we expand the knowledge base on these engines. Should be an interesting ride.:cool:

David, yes I agree. I use one HP pump on takeoff with my finger near the switch for #2. Otherwise the fuel pressure is a bit higher with both running. I like to be in control of these things with a switch and not getting into that "what is it doing now?" situation.

The new ECUs don't need an O2 at all.
 
Last edited:
Ross,

Thank you for the detailed background of your professional engine building career. I also checked out your web site and respect your accomplishments. I'm really not trying to fuel a fire here.

Obviously you have a past history and confidence in the alternative powerplant you have chosen. Hence you are willing to bet your life on it.

This is the only point I was trying to make, we are betting our lifes on the decisions we make as builders.

I have also built a lot of engines and set my share of records. I have experienced the glory of building the underdog and taking the win over the big bucks, factory teams and most likely winner. It's truely a glorious moment when this can be done.

I have seen ECU's just stop working because of enviromental temperatures, both hot and cold. No big deal when you coast to a stop or get towed in. Gravity doesn't always allow us this option. I've read a lot about reduction unit failures lately which is a requirement for utilizing smaller displacement lower torque engines. You still need to have rpm to make your horsepower. Just another componenent subject to failure.

You can choose to develop and iron out the kinks in the alternative aircraft engine, as it is your choice. Weighing all the factors, I still make my decision for the proven aircraft engine.

May all your flights be safe.

ted
 
Back
Top