Lycoming in place of Subaru

[tspear]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Where can the average guy buy one?

This is the key phrase. Subaru, and auto conversions in general can work. There are really two problems. 1. No solid packages available. 2. Lack of general knowledge.
If you install a Lycoming or Continental, there is a ready to hand large body of knowledge and people who likely have run into many of the same issues.
Basically, the road to knowledge is well plowed....

Tim

[tspear]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

I look at it this way. Despite what many people say about Jan Eggenfellner's business practices it would be stupid to say that he didn't eventually know a lot about Subaru conversions. He formed Eggenfellner Aviation in 1994 and by 2003 he had manufactured and sold 298 Subaru conversion kits to RV builders alone. By the time he went bankrupt in 2009 he had moved through several Subaru engine models and 3 generations of prop reduction gear boxes. And yet despite having designed and manufactured hundreds of Subaru conversions, and despite the presumably immense knowledge gained along the way, he was unable to achieve a reliable product.

That leads me to surmise that a single individual working in his backyard shed on a one-off Subaru conversion with limited resources is unlikely to fare better than Jan Eggenfellner who had the benefit of personal experience (and field experience) accumulated along the way to producing literally hundreds of conversions.

Actually the bad business practices is what from a 3rd party perspective prevented Jan from ever producing a package which had a really good reputation.
From the outside, Jan was making changes which were not needed to the engine, and then not putting enough effort into making changes to the single points of failure which if there were reliability problems could have catastrophic consequences. e.g. PRSU....

One of the crazier ideas I have always had was to get away from computers and do something in aviation. As such, one fascination I have had is the auto conversion market. I have sat down and built out a financial plan and business model with a couple of different engineers. I always went to guys who had built and fly auto conversion planes. No matter how we sliced it, unless I wanted to work for free doing all the design work; and spending at least three to four times the effort documenting every detail, then many more hours figuring out the best way to keep it simple and repeatable, there was no way to make the engine cheaper than an existing Lycoming.

So until someone is that generous with their time and knowledge; or we can convince a bunch of builders who are all near each other to do this together to spread the load; snake oil salesman will continue to sell packages which do not meet expectations.

Tim

[rv7charlie]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

Hi Scott, it has been my observation over the years that the enthusiasm with which individual builders initially embrace auto conversions is inversely proportional to their understanding of things mechanical. The gear-heads tend to understand the potential problems and are therefore more reluctant to go down that path.

Some people continue to claim that Subaru conversions can be made to work but of the 6 projects that I know of personally not one has been successful and most of them resulted in catastrophic failures.

I look at it this way. Despite what many people say about Jan Eggenfellner's business practices it would be stupid to say that he didn't eventually know a lot about Subaru conversions. He formed Eggenfellner Aviation in 1994 and by 2003 he had manufactured and sold 298 Subaru conversion kits to RV builders alone. By the time he went bankrupt in 2009 he had moved through several Subaru engine models and 3 generations of prop reduction gear boxes. And yet despite having designed and manufactured hundreds of Subaru conversions, and despite the presumably immense knowledge gained along the way, he was unable to achieve a reliable product.

That leads me to surmise that a single individual working in his backyard shed on a one-off Subaru conversion with limited resources is unlikely to fare better than Jan Eggenfellner who had the benefit of personal experience (and field experience) accumulated along the way to producing literally hundreds of conversions.

You can get wrong answers from bad data, but you can also get wrong answers with bad analysis.

You saw 6 bad results, and assumed that all results were bad. Ross sees your 6 bad results, and hundreds (possibly thousands) of good results. I look at the 6 bad & hundreds of good, and see 6 individuals that were less than capable of doing an auto conversion in an a/c. The fact that all 6 you saw got bad results is the nature of statistics. At some point, you will roll 6 'snake eyes' in a row, too.

You see one individual who stole money from hundreds of people by marketing defective products, then attempted (often successfully) to force those same people to buy replacement products that were also defective, and assume that a *skilled* backyard designer/builder can't build a working system when a brilliant snake oil salesman who's also a *bad* designer/builder can't build the same thing. I submit that your analysis is faulty.

I've said this many times in the past: *Statistically*, there's an inverse relationship between people's willingness to try an alt engine, and their qualifications to achieve it. The operative word is 'statistically'. Each attempt should be evaluated on its own merits. But there are, unfortunately, more unqualified people trying it than qualified people, so the statistical results look bad.

The issue is almost never the engine. It's the people doing the design/installation/maintenance.

[rv6ejguy]

Yes, lots of conversions have failed the test of time and conversely many are working well years later and you hear nothing about them, just as a Lycoming with no problems doesn't make the news. When something goes wrong with either, they make the news as in last month with the ECI disintegration and subsequent successful forced landing http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=152627.

Closed minded people often condemn what they don't understand as all bad, refusing to acknowledge any successes even when presented with information which contradicts their beliefs.

This is common in the Lycoming/ Cert vs. Alt engine debate and this is why people like Russell Sherwood's accomplishments are so important. You can deny all you want but this photo and Russell's record is reality. When the flag drops, the BS stops as we say and Russell has caused the Lycoming advocates to become very silent in SARL. Nothing like a dose of reality. The late Bob Axsom who was big in SARL, once mentioned he had new found respect for Russell's Subaru powered airplane. It changed his opinion of car engines in airplanes. BTW, the left most trophy is the "Kick Butt" award given to the competitor who utterly destroys his competition- all Lycoming and Continental powered in this case.



Many Lycoming people still come up with excuses and ludicrous explanations, simply not believing this. Gary Spencer with his Ford powered canard has done the same thing racing and has around 2000 trouble free hours.

I've posted numerous examples of successful auto conversions over the years here, yet some people still refuse to believe it's possible. We have some RV pilots on this forum who have over 600 hours on their Subes with little trouble to date, one has posted in this thread. I know a number of other RV flyers with Sube power, most working just fine. I posted this a few months back: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=147804 and this: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=68887 which showed higher speeds than Lycoming powered RV7s on similar fuel burns.

Haters gonna hate as they say. No changing that in some people. Auto conversions are not for everyone and probably not for you. No reason for the hate, just ignore it all if it bothers you.

Anyway, this debate will never end. Let's get back on track and offer the OP any help with getting a Lycoming in his RV.

[moosepileit]

What does Race 84 use for a PSRU?

Links/story website?

Marcotte?

http://www.sdsefi.com/air14.html

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by moosepileit

What does Race 84 use for a PSRU?

Links/story website?

Marcotte?

http://www.sdsefi.com/air14.html

You can search the SARL site here for results: http://sportairrace.org/sarl/

Search Russell Sherwood Glasair on YouTube, he has a number of good videos up.

Yes, he uses a Marcotte M-300 PSRU just like me after failures of Ross and GAP planetary drives. Neither of us have had any internal issues with our drives and neither has been taken apart since new.

You won't find many big stories about Race 84. Russell prefers to prove what he's done by putting on the cross country miles and winning his class in SARL, over and over. Russell is a modest guy but he does like to prove the naysayers wrong by beating them in the races.

Any other questions, just PM me. Let's get this thread back on track.

[jcaplins]

Originally Posted by steve murray

Small items in the scheme of airplanes but absolutely enjoy not adding oil ever and not wiping oil off the belly and not having a oily engine. The engine operation is super smooth, super quiet and burns 93 octane ethanol auto fuel. Never have issues with starts. I actually like the water cooled aspect in that I do not worry about preheats, shock cooling etc. I know I am a bit heavier, slower than I should be but I knew this going into the project.

Steve, I would like to know what you mean by "super quiet", or what have you done to make it quiet. Mine is quiet at idle and low rpm, but at takeoff and cruise (say, 4500rpm) its super loud. I have dual mufflers too (supertraps, I think)

[DanH]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

When something goes wrong with either, they make the news as in last month with the Lycoming disintegration and subsequent successful forced landing http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=152627.

ECI disintegration.

I'm sure Lycoming is very sensitive about such reporting details

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by DanH

ECI disintegration.

I'm sure Lycoming is very sensitive about such reporting details

Agreed, corrected.

[steve murray]

Originally Posted by jcaplins

Steve, I would like to know what you mean by "super quiet", or what have you done to make it quiet. Mine is quiet at idle and low rpm, but at takeoff and cruise (say, 4500rpm) its super loud. I have dual mufflers too (Supertraps, I think)

Hi Jeff,

To be honest, as high power levels I have never heard my airplane external to the cockpit as no one has ever flown my plane but me. I suspect (have not measured) it is lower in decibels compared to other engines external to the cockpit as I have been told it is very quiet in the pattern by others. I agree with you, on the ground it is much quieter at idle vs. takeoff power level. I always use noise canceling headphones. It maybe my calibration point is biased as it has been many years since I have flown behind a Lycoming.

It does seem to quieten up a bit after I get away from the ground. I am also running two Supertrapp mufflers, the only mod I did to the mufflers is to replace the inside fiberglass material with stainless steel wool.

(You are not by chance the person who bought Any Parrish's plane are you?)

Steve