What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Subaru Grumblings

MY BIG MOTOR

Hi Chad, I did miss your post! Easy to see that guys with "small engines" don't get much respect here on the forum, so I dropped my plan for an 0-235
and am planning on a P&W! Since gross weight is up to the builder, I think a twin row radial is the perfect engine for the RV-9! :)
 
Better make it two radials

Yukon said:
Since gross weight is up to the builder, I think a twin row radial is the perfect engine for the RV-9! :)

You should probably install two big radials...one in the "stock" location forward of the firewall, and one behind the baggage compartment, for balance. It's easy...you just run a long driveshaft through the tailcone to a prop behind the rudder. Like the Dornier 335.

If they did it in WWII, how hard can it be?

Two radials, three small-block Chevy's, four Subarus...whatever it takes. :)
 
mgomez said:
You should probably install two big radials...one in the "stock" location forward of the firewall, and one behind the baggage compartment, for balance. It's easy...you just run a long driveshaft through the tailcone to a prop behind the rudder. Like the Dornier 335.

If they did it in WWII, how hard can it be?

Two radials, three small-block Chevy's, four Subarus...whatever it takes. :)
Time to dump the H2AD and grab an R4360-mount it midship and go! Let's get some serious power!
 
Vans Tri Motor

What a great idea!

I am thinking 2 of those BMW derivative twins on each wing and then maybe a Mistral rotary on the nose. Drop tanks and tip tanks optional, or get Johanson and the other round the worlders to share the secrets of their fuel systems.

Or we could go back to the RV 82 design with big block Chevys???????????????????????????????????????

Heck with that....Falconer V12 or maybe Nagel can get a product to market: www.nagel-engine.com
 
cjensen said:
Hey John,

Did you miss my last post in this thread about your R2800??? I'm curious as to what that's about... :D

Chad,

John is using the R2800 only because he can not find a good 4360....:)

dd
 
RVator article

Last RVator finally..... a RV-9a fly off between the factory 160HP RV-9a and a customer built Subaru (supercharged 4 banger version). The planes where about as a good match in finish and equip as you could hope for.

Will not repeat all the details since they are there to read, but it was left at the fact Eggenfellner has stopped selling the 4 banger, and they looked forward to a H6 fly off. The Subaru did better in both performance and fuel burn than expected, but the Lycoming still had the edge. There where subjective and interesting comments about noise, cooling and cost.
 
David-aviator said:
Chad,

John is using the R2800 only because he can not find a good 4360....:)

dd

Come on David, let's be reasonable. Van says the R-4360 is too heavy for the RV-9, but should be a good fit with the RV-10. :) :)
 
Alternative engines in EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.

I find it amusing how someone will build an "experimental" (although I don't think you can call a design with over 4000 flying examples that) aircraft and then decry the use of an experimental powerplant. I guess some people can't let go of that 70 year old technology. Let's face it; some people are of limited imagination.
While true, in that 70 years of unchange, the design has proven itself. It has however, been far from perfect. How many broken cranks, cams, valves, pistons, rods etc.. have there been?
If you look at the evolution of the Lyc you will notice one thing. Constant parts superseding. I understand now that the crank AD is down to the O-360 model engine. How much longer till the O-320's are changing theirs as well. I understand also that it's an inexpensive fix. Only about $10,000.
Speaking of cost. Let's talk about cost of ownership. $20-$25,000 initially for the engine. Then throw in maintenance costs and compliance to AD's and it goes up quickly. Let's not mention the fact that even though the TBO is stated to be 2000 hrs, no Lycoming has EVER made it to that without some type of top end or other major repair. Unfortunately, most owners are ill equipped to perform these repairs on their own, so we have an additional SMALL investment here. The last time I had my O-320 inspected I had a $13,000 repair bill and didn't even have a new engine. By the way, that was with only 500 hours since the previous overhaul.
For my money, I think I'll expand my horizons and look for an alternative.

Flame away, Neal
 
Let's not mention the fact that even though the TBO is stated to be 2000 hrs, no Lycoming has EVER made it to that without some type of top end or other major repair.
One of the banner planes I flew was a 172 with an O-360. When I last flew it a few years ago, it had gone 2400 or so since it's last major OH and was still going strong. No top or other repairs during that time. Unusual for a Lyc to go that far? Sure but not impossible.

One side note about AD's. Yes lyc and Conts have AD's and that's a pain. However, just because you'll never get a crank AD on your alternative engine of choice does not in any way mean an AD will never be required. It just means that if one were to be required, you'd never know it until your crack failed. Just something else to consider.
 
So the auto engine conversions are better?

If you want to experiment with an auto engine conversion, by all means have at it.

I'm going to use a Lycoming or clone, for reasons I mention under "Choices" in my Web site.

Just because the Lycomings are old, doesn't mean they're bad. They have problems, sure...in fact, the reason you KNOW they do is because there have been thousands sold over the last few decades, accumulating millions of hours of service history.

While Subaru engines have tons of service history in cars, they have very little in airplanes. I'm not terribly worried about the engine core, but I do wonder about the reduction drives, ECUs, fuel systems, and cooling systems used to adapt them to airplane use.

How good are they? Who knows?

Old is not synonymous with bad, and new is not synonymous with good. If newer were automatically better, I'd power my airplane with an Intel MacBook...they're very new. Or perhaps a plasma screen TV...that's new too. I have a brand new Nikon D200 which is just awesome...how about that as a powerplant?

Oh, wait, laptops, TV sets, and digital cameras are totally unsuitable as airplane power plants...they were designed for a completely different purpose.

2006RV9a said:
I find it amusing how someone will build an "experimental" (although I don't think you can call a design with over 4000 flying examples that) aircraft and then decry the use of an experimental powerplant. I guess some people can't let go of that 70 year old technology. Let's face it; some people are of limited imagination.
While true, in that 70 years of unchange, the design has proven itself. It has however, been far from perfect. How many broken cranks, cams, valves, pistons, rods etc.. have there been?
If you look at the evolution of the Lyc you will notice one thing. Constant parts superseding. I understand now that the crank AD is down to the O-360 model engine. How much longer till the O-320's are changing theirs as well. I understand also that it's an inexpensive fix. Only about $10,000.
Speaking of cost. Let's talk about cost of ownership. $20-$25,000 initially for the engine. Then throw in maintenance costs and compliance to AD's and it goes up quickly. Let's not mention the fact that even though the TBO is stated to be 2000 hrs, no Lycoming has EVER made it to that without some type of top end or other major repair. Unfortunately, most owners are ill equipped to perform these repairs on their own, so we have an additional SMALL investment here. The last time I had my O-320 inspected I had a $13,000 repair bill and didn't even have a new engine. By the way, that was with only 500 hours since the previous overhaul.
For my money, I think I'll expand my horizons and look for an alternative.

Flame away, Neal
 
FWIW
I manage a flight school here in in northern california and many of our lycs go 2000 hours without a top or major maintenance. Of course our engines get oil changes @ 50 hours and are flown often, some at times averaging 100+ hours a month.
Tom
RV3
 
Frequent use of Lycoming engines

tin man said:
I manage a flight school here in in northern california and many of our lycs go 2000 hours without a top or major maintenance. Of course our engines get oil changes @ 50 hours and are flown often, some at times averaging 100+ hours a month.
I think the key is frequent use. All of the aviation engines I've heard of that achieved or exceeded TBO have been flown a lot. If you can fly daily, a Lycoming will probably last for 2000+ hours. I guess the rest of us should consider and alternative engine! :)
 
Alternative engines

mgomez said:
Just because the Lycomings are old, doesn't mean they're bad. They have problems, sure...in fact, the reason you KNOW they do is because there have been thousands sold over the last few decades, accumulating millions of hours of service history.
Fiat cars have sold millions, and they have probably billions of hours of service history. And they have problems.


mgomez said:
While Subaru engines have tons of service history in cars, they have very little in airplanes. I'm not terribly worried about the engine core, but I do wonder about the reduction drives, ECUs, fuel systems, and cooling systems used to adapt them to airplane use.
The systems that convert the auto engines to aircraft engines are almost always the weak point of an alternative engine. This is pretty well understood, and is the focus of lots of attention. My personal feeling is that I would prefer to have a weak point like the fuel system, which I have some control over, than the crankshaft metallurgy, which I have no control over.
 
Crankshaft Failure???

Come on Mickey, just how many RV crashes have been caused by crankshaft failure??? Now tell me how many Subaru accessory-related crashes/engine outs have there been????
 
Free Horizons

Congrats Neal, it only took two and a half weeks to go from initial post and finally degrade into the urination match, ha ha, he he.

"How many broken cranks, cams, valves, pistons, rods etc.. have there been?" Good question how many have there been in the 100,000 engines and millions of hours.

"If you look at the evolution of the Lyc you will notice one thing. Constant parts superseding." How many parts have been superseded? and so what if a parts has been changed over a 40 year period. The engine design has been very stable for decades. The reason for this design stability is they are CERTIFIED and made it right the first time. By the way Horz opposed engines did not just appear. They are based on engine development from the 20's thru the 50's, when NACA (now NASA) was researching piston engines, especially during WWII. These engines are very specialized air cooled direct drive aircraft engines; I don't expect you to understand or appreciate that. That's not put down, just that they're very efficient and specifically engines made for aircraft use, not cars.

"I understand now that the crank AD is down to the O-360 model engine. How much longer till the O-320's are changing theirs as well. I understand also that it's an inexpensive fix. Only about $10,000." Yes a batch of cranks in the 90's where bad, true. It recall a vendor heat treat process was improperly done, not a design issue. Consider the AD free cranks made in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and except for the aforementioned batch, most of the 90's and the 00's. At least people are watching the quality control and service history. I doubt there will be another major crank AD. Again what is your point? Stuff happens.

"Speaking of cost. Let's talk about cost of ownership. $20-$25,000 initially for the engine. Then throw in maintenance costs and compliance to AD's and it goes up quickly." There you are just talking out your hat. You assume there is going to be AD on new engines. That's just crazy talk. If history is any indication the chance is unlikely to nil. My 80's vintage O-360 has no crank AD. Again what the heck are you talking about? What is your point?

"Let's not mention the fact that even though the TBO is stated to be 2000 hrs, no Lycoming has EVER made it to that without some type of top end or other major repair." That is just plane hyperbole and rhetoric unencumbered by facts. I have personally flown several Lycs well past TBO, and when I was CFI'ing and flying freight I flew planes out of a fleet of 30 Lyc powered planes. I recall all where perfectly happy to go to TBO, when overhaul is mandatory by FAR's for hire aircraft and Part 135.

"Unfortunately, most owners are ill equipped to perform these repairs on their own, so we have an additional SMALL investment here." Oh yea that spark plug socket and special tools to do a oil change might set you back $50. Please is that the best you got. A Lycoming is the easiest engine I have ever worked on. Why do you think ECI and Superior have do-it-yourself engine kits? They are easy to build and maintain with hand tools.

"The last time I had my O-320 inspected I had a $13,000 repair bill and didn't even have a new engine. By the way, that was with only 500 hours since the previous overhaul." So what inspection cost you $13,000? Just curious, not that I don't believe you (is that a double negative). What was it, a 25 year old engine with 500 hours or a prop strike? :rolleyes:

"For my money, I think I'll expand my horizons and look for an alternative." Neal you are entitled to your horizons, but can you do it with out spreading exaggeration's? What does it do for you to bash the Lyc? YOu did not say one positive thing abut alternative engines. Does it make you feel better, or do you feel strongly it's a mistake to use a Lyc? I don't think it is a mistake, and I don't think it's a mistake to use an alternative, but it's just not for everyone. I would say it is not for most people. It takes a special person to commit to it and pull it off. Can't we agree to disagree without all the bogosity. Can't we just get along? :rolleyes:

You are clearly someone who should use an alternative engine; Lycoming engine's apparently don't like you (based on your story). You can get one of those Subaru H6. A H6, reported to be 40 lbs more (or 60lbs) will make you RV 160 lbs heavier than a Lyc. Ouch. Like Yukon said a P&W R2800 would be nice. :D Heck it's experimental, so why have a lack of imagination with the recommended empty aircraft weight, especially since your horizons are free. Make the 1,600/1,800 lb gross a 2,000 lb gross. Good Luck (Notice, I did not say one negative thing about alternative engines, but I will allow one criticism, alternative engine installations tend to weigh too much.)

P.S., if alternative engines are so good why can't they stand on their own merits? The alternative engine proponents rhetoric always digresses to attacking the Lycoming, instead of talking about the advantages of alternative engine performance, weight, economy, ease of installation and lower price? The reason is the Lycoming is still the epitome, gold standard. Alternatives are not quite there when you look at the black and white facts. Emotionally the alternative sounds like it suites you Neal because of your imagination and horizons. For those of closed minds like me, who just want to fly, get a Lycoming. Go get'em Neal. :D
 
Last edited:
That's why thet call it experimental.

Ill informed ?
How many people know that the Sube H4 was originally designed for an aircraft. How many people know that Fuji Heavy industries actually built planes under a license from Beechcraft? How about the fact that they ran the H4 wide open on a race track for 100,000 km? Not just one car, but 3.
Lycosaurs will be with us for a long time. There will always be a market for the same old, same old and there will always be companies making a fortune off parts for them :)
I guess some people have thin skin,
Fly safe
 
Cost of ownership

Not too many private pilots can fly the hours a flight school does. BTW, How many RV's are in flight schools?
The inspection was on an engine that was sitting a long time between flights, as most experimentals do. Excessive cam pitting and exhaust valve grunge was the culprit. Be that as it may. It still costs a lot more to overhaul and maintain a Lycoming even with above average flight times.
Cam and lifters, $1000
Cylinders, $4800
Getting rid of a Lycoming, Priceless......
Fly safe,
 
Alligators and motives

2006RV9a said:
Ill informed ?
How many people know that the Sube H4 was originally designed for an aircraft. How many people know that Fuji Heavy industries actually built planes under a license from Beechcraft? How about the fact that they ran the H4 wide open on a race track for 100,000 km? Not just one car, but 3.
Lycosaurs will be with us for a long time. There will always be a market for the same old, same old and there will always be companies making a fortune off parts for them :) I guess some people have thin skin, Fly safe
Are you talking about ME? :rolleyes: No I am alligator skin boy. I think it is you who is thinned skin, my friend. Just responding in kind to your provocitive comments, no flame.

The ill informed comment is not a personal comment, but a reflection on your comments and apparent limited lycoming experience, tainted by one negative unrepresentative and atypical experience. Those in the group who have more experience with Lyc's are just trying to help and educate you.

I had some misconceptions about alternative engines and have learned a lot about Subaru's and Mazda's from those who have been there done that, the good, bad and ugly. They are honest and present the facts. That's all.

Having been around Piston Lycs for about 20 years, having 20 friends with Lyc powered RV's and owned several factory planes, one being a twin, I can say none of them ever had a crank AD or eat a top end, as you painted your portrait. Also in the late 80's / early 90's, as mentioned, I flew one of 30 differnt Lyc powered planes; all where like swiss watches, gas burning loud swiss watches.

I don't know what your motives are Neal, but mine are for people to have all the facts, good, bad and ugly. I think if some one makes an alternative engine choice they should do it for the right reasons, not because they think a Lyc is defective, dangerous or poorly designed. You give no alternative engine positives and in my opinion make some exaggerated negative claims against the Lyc. Just my opinion and nothing personal.

Neal you throw out a barrage of "questions?" like how many crank have failed and non-sequiturs like Fuji industry makes parts for XYZ. Let's keep it simple and stick to facts. There are 4,000 people that potentially read our comments. We should have a little commitment presenting our opinions fairly.

I could care less if you or 1,000 people use an alternative engine. However I would hate for 1 person to commit to an alternative engine just on perceived faults and fears you're bringing to the table right now, so yes, you are ill informed. No offense.
 
Last edited:
engine failures

Yukon said:
Come on Mickey, just how many RV crashes have been caused by crankshaft failure??? Now tell me how many Subaru accessory-related crashes/engine outs have there been????
Thankfully there have been very few of either types of crash. I've found these three catastrophic engine failures in aviation engines in RVs after about 10 minutes of looking. Keep in mind there are a lot more stall/spin accidents, and fuel exhaustion accidents than engine failures.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010206X00401&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19358&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00196&key=1

There are quite a few "engine failure for undetermined reasons" which I would guess are mostly due to carb ice.

I have no way of knowing how many forced landings have occured due to engine failure that were not reported to the FAA/NTSB.

I know of 2 forced landings with production Eggenfellner Subaru engines in RVs. One of these I believe was "unavoidable" for the builder, meaning that the builder did everything right, and there was a defect in the design of the part that failed.

I find 26 records in the NTSB that mention subaru including all types of homebuilt airplanes, but some of these are stall/spin accidents, and drugged up pilots. I found one catastrophic engine failure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21344&key=1

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to sell anyone on a particular type of engine, I'm simply explaining my reasoning for choosing the subaru.
 
It is what it is

Here is a short list of accidents with alternative engines. Link is the text version of probably cause and the second is the PDF final version.

I just scanned many and must admit there where only a few catastrophic failures. However and this is a big however, loss of power came in all kind of weird and wounderful ways very unique to alternative (automotive) engines. I limited search on Subaru and Mazda experimental aircraft:

RV-7A Subaru (timing chain/belt)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031017X01762&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04LA011&rpt=fi

RV-9A Subaru (vapor lock)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040624X00865&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi

RV-6A Subaru (elect prop)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050621X00829&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA05LA118&rpt=fi

KIS Subaru (limp home mode or take U to scene of accident mode)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00207&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA088&rpt=fi

KR2S Subaru (elect fuel pump)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040304X00264&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX04LA141&rpt=fi

Kitfox Subaru (elect fuel pump/EFI?)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07473&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC97LA036&rpt=fi

Genesis Subaru (eng/prop reduction drive belts MIA?)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X10023&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI98LA170&rpt=fi

AVIS Mk IV Subaru (rod failure)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21344&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA00LA116&rpt=fi

TAILWIND Subaru (undetermined popping sound heard by gnd witness)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00535&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi

JN-4D Subaru (ignition coil)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20011001X02017&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC01LA226&rpt=fi

Zodiac Subaru (ignition power supply)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020426X00579&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA02LA069&rpt=fi

Coot Mazda (seize rotor)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020504X00620&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA02LA072&rpt=fi

Zenair Mazda (coolant temperature went too high pwr lost)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040726X01069&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN04LA108&rpt=fi

Zodiac Subaru (ldg accident precaution due to high oil/coolant temp)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030203X00146&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW03LA091&rpt=fi

T-18 Mazda (Vapor Lock)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X01770&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA273&rpt=fi

KR2 Subaru (coolant pee-ed out)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13608&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA034&rpt=fi

Ultravia Pelican-PL Subaru (partial power loss? Limp flying)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050714X01023&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA119&rpt=fi

Vari-Ez Subaru (Who knows?)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040421X00490&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA04CA054&rpt=fi

Vari-Ez Subaru (PSRU failure?)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001207X04042&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC95LA137&rpt=fi

CP 301 Subaru (Electrical failure, ignition said screw it)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X02187&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI94DER03&rpt=fi

No comment of conclusion, it is what it is, a forced landing due to loss of power. Cheers

Well one comment, there's nothing like direct drive, air cooled, mechanical fuel pump, magneto ignition, farm tractor (old) technology. :D

Micky's NTSB Lyc reports: Tragic Oregon RV-8 inflight fire / accident. Please, this engine was highly modified. A catastrophic engine failure does not necessarily always mean fire. Also (who knows) if the canopy would have remained closed and he got on the ground ASAP, he may have survived? Loss of power is loss of power. It is what it is. The other two sound like the bolts where not torqued. I can't get into fatigue analysis here but pre-load is so critical on the Lyc bottom end. It is not hard to do but takes some technique and a special tool, a calibrated torque wrench.
 
Last edited:
Lycoming failures

I tried to run a search on all the catastrophic engine failures on Lycoming but there were too many to list...
 
2006RV9a said:
I tried to run a search on all the catastrophic engine failures on Lycoming but there were too many to list...

i WANT alternative. I'm not pro anything but the only 'fair' comparison would be failures/hour. Lycoming failures SHOULD be plentiful because their hours are so. Having said that, it is only fair that alternative/hour also used.

I don't have my PPL yet and I am dreaming of a diesel and using an a/c for a long distance commute in my not too distant future [simply x-c flying for practical reasons].

I'm frugal [probably to a fault :rolleyes: ...]

I started my quest thinking a canard and a wankel. I still visit their website daily [as I do this one] but have given up on that power plant. Haven't on the subie yet [but since no 4 banger fwf availability and my desire for a -9 probably a 'no go' for me now].

I believe as an objective observer... that alternatives need to show a 10% incrementable, quatifiable benefit to offset the 'unknown' factor.

i TRULY WANT to burn auto gas [actually diesel but that isn't practical yet] and for alternatives to 'work' but my opinion is that in the over all scheme of things if they are only 'equal' to traditional engines there is no benefit.

Not to be morbid, but I'm an Evangelical Christian so dying doesn't scare me in the least.... if I go down in a plane because of an engine failure then I go to heaven and joy. I have an obligation to be safe but again, if alternative engines are only 'as safe' as traditional.. fine with me... I'm looking for a true, quantifiable, defendable advantage to convenience me...

sorry this was so long ...

ymmv

John
 
if alternative engines are only 'as safe' as traditional.. fine with me... I'm looking for a true, quantifiable, defendable advantage to convenience me...

Well,

You should say if "alternative Engine Systems" are as reliable.

Fuji heavy industries does not make any airplanes.

Fuji heavy industries does not make any piston recip prop drives.

Neither does Mazda.

When you crash you may go to heaven...the house you burn down when you crash may not contain "saved" souls.

Of the crank failure accidents, the last one resulted from improper assembly (improperly torqued rod and cylinder bolts), and the other seperated at the cheek between 3 and 4, indicative of an unrepaired prop strike.

When the technology is mature, perhaps the car engine approach will be worth it, wish it were now. The only widely successful (for car engines) that I am aware of is the vw, and even it stuggles not to be heavy.

As to hours...remember that this weekend more 320 and 360 hours were safely flown than all the hours of subaru flight.

What percentage of RV6 and 7 with subaru's have had a deadstick landing?

I bet it is in the high teens. Three below plus Jan, RV Guy makes at least five...are there even 25 of these flying in side by side rvs?
 
Jconard said:
Fuji heavy industries does not make any airplanes.

Actually they do, well helicopters.

Subaru of America, Inc.
Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., (FHI), traces its corporate lineage back to Nakajima Aircraft Company, which was founded in 1917. In 1953, five Japanese companies joined to form FHI, which has grown to become one of Japan's largest manufacturers of transportation equipment. Worldwide, FHI employs more than 15,000 people, has nine manufacturing plants and sells its products in 100 countries.

Best known for its Subaru automobiles, FHI also manufactures commercial and military aircraft and aircraft parts, engines and machinery, buses and rolling stock. The company has a long history as a technological innovator and boasts some of the most diversified and advanced all-wheel drive (AWD) technologies in the world.

ST. LOUIS, March 15, 2006 -- Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) today delivered the first AH-64D Apache Longbow multi-role combat helicopter to the Japanese government during a ceremony in Japan, signaling a new era in capabilities for the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force.

FHI and The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] teamed for the production of the aircraft. The ceremony was held at the FHI production facility in Utsunomiya, Japan, where FHI will produce future Apaches.

Fuji Heavy Industries is a global manufacturer of transportation and aerospace related products and the maker of SUBARU automobiles. It manufactures the center-wing section of the Boeing 777 and was recently contracted to build components for the Airbus A380.
 
Subaru 4-banger

Deuskid said:
I started my quest thinking a canard and a wankel. I still visit their website daily [as I do this one] but have given up on that power plant. Haven't on the subie yet [but since no 4 banger fwf availability and my desire for a -9 probably a 'no go' for me now].
I believe Eggenfellner is re-starting production of the 4 cylinder engine, due to popular demand.

Jconard said:
What percentage of RV6 and 7 with subaru's have had a deadstick landing?

I bet it is in the high teens. Three below plus Jan, RV Guy makes at least five...are there even 25 of these flying in side by side rvs?
I don't know the number of subarus flying in SBS RVs. Jan's forced landing was during testing of new PSRU, so I'm not sure if that should really be counted.
 
Why wouldn't the PSRU failure count? PSRU is a necessary component of this setup, so its failure is a system failure.

And thank you for verifying that Fuji does not build Airplanes...contract parts are obviously not airplanes, and I do not mean to point out the obvious when I suggest that an apache is a helicopter, and that a helicopter is not an airplane.
 
Flight testing failure

Jconard said:
Why wouldn't the PSRU failure count? PSRU is a necessary component of this setup, so its failure is a system failure.
A PSRU is of course necessary, but I'm not sure it's fair to count failures during flight testing of a new system. Customer failures should count, but not test flights.
 
Jconard said:
if alternative engines are only 'as safe' as traditional.. fine with me... I'm looking for a true, quantifiable, defendable advantage to convenience me...

It is Ok to be unconvinced. But keep an open mind.

If possible, get a ride behind a Subby. As someone at Arlington said, he could not believe how smooth the engine is compared to an RV-10 ride which felt and sounded the engine would leave the airframe, there was so much vibration.

This of course is all relative to what we are accustomed to. My Lycoming experience for the most part has been good. In fact, I consider the 0360-A4M with its solid crank as near bullet proof as they come, and contrary to what some say, the engines do go to 2000+ hours. My A4M was first run and when overhauled the crank was found to be in new limits and the rest of the engine very clean. Long engine life is a matter of care and operating procedure, the most important being regular oil change and cruise power at 65% or less.

I switched to Subby to be doing something different. I would not go back to Lycoming. Most are personal reasons, but basically I feel the H6 is at least as bullet proof as the A4M starting with a crank shaft with 7 main bearings vrs 3 in the Lycoming. Yes there have been some dead stick landings, 2 for fuel vapor lock, 1 PSRU failure, 1 induced timing belt failure, 1 electric failure, but this is part of experiemental aviation. We're plowing new ground here and things are bound to happen, but we learn from each event and move forward.

My problem with Lycoming is they are constantly changing the engines for economic reasons and invariably introduce new problems. That is why crank shafts are failing. That is why oil drive gears failed years ago. The Subaru H4 and H6 may not have a fraction of the time in an airplane as Lycoming but they are proven very reliable in billions of auto miles. Back in the late 80's a Subaru engine was run for 19 days non stop at over 100 MPH without failure. This is a matter of record if anyone is interested in the history of the engines.

It is OK to ask questions and be cautious, but do keep an open mind. Nothing stays the same for ever.

dd
RV-7A H6
N707DD
 
Fair criticism and indignation but over stated

2006RV9a said:
I tried to run a search on all the catastrophic engine failures on Lycoming but there were too many to list...


I think we are talking about a finite number, not too many to list. I took a stab at it. I did a quick and dirty search on the following key words:

Hits
(1) "CRANKSHAFT - FATIGUE"
(28) "CRANKSHAFT - FAILURE"
(7) "CRANKSHAFT - SEPARATION"

(2) "CONNECTING ROD - FATUGUE"
(28) "CONNECTING ROD - FAILURE"
(3) "CONNECTING ROD - SEPARATION"

Approx a total of 30 unique hits for Lyc Rod and/or Crank failure
Almost 1/2 to 2/3rds of the hits where for Continental.

In the reports I found some with detailed metallurgical analysis, very interesting. Amazing detail and insight of the metal's micro-structure.

Some failure where clearly maintenance (no oil) or assembly issues or Darwin recipients of natural selection. One guy had his crank rejected twice, once in 1991, later 2001 for a crack in the #1 crank journal by two different shops, but amazingly it made it on to his home-built for a 2003 crash. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA03LA139&rpt=fi

There where failures that where directly related to "material defect - manufacture" and/or "quality control - manufacture". I only found a hand full that where meterial defect or a QC issue. One is too many, but stuff happens. With a large fleet statistically there is going to be a bad crank in the apple basket.

Clearly there are no good excuses. They screwed up. Fortunitly it's a small total number of the fleet, but never the less unacceptable. We can have some comfort in that the problem is recognized and addressed. We know where the bad cranks are. If you don't have one in the affected group, you statistically have a very reliable piece of equipment. In engineering there is never 100% guarantee of no failure in anything, but we do want the chance to be very small to the negative 99th power. Also they have made corrections and safeguards to avoid this again. (I know I asked).

You can even more comfort if your crank is not on the AD list. Since mine was made in the early 80's from a group, which has been fine and racked up no doubt countless hours as a group, is a good thing to know (since it has been tracked and certified). Statistically my crank is a known.

Perfect steel cranks don't exist anywhere, but by design the "Stress" in Lyc cranks are "de-rated" to achieve a very conservative fatigue life, probably 3 times its useful mechanical life, even with imperfections. They are conservatively designed for their intended purpose.

The highest quality materials and manufacturing processes are used, but there's this thing called human error. I still submit the design, materials and manufacturing is not inherently flawed. Clearly the low number of failure free hours flown in the fleet over a half century is an excellent statistic.

From a rational, engineering stand point, manufacturing, metallurgical view, there's nothing radical about Lycoming engines. I have no reason to condone or suggest past manufacture or sub-contractor mistakes are OK, they are not. However past errors are well understood and accounted for. Statistically they are small and avoidable. Once found and ID'ed it improves the statistics, since we know where these failures came from or where they did not.

I feel bad for owners subject to the AD, the initial one was basically fully covered under warranty. The subsequent "crank retirement" is parts at cost (what was it $3k-$4k?) and no labor, since there's no AD the replacement is not mandatory. There have been NO failures of this latter suspect batch, but Lycoming thinks they are not up to standards.

You can either curse them or respect that they are doing something, even if it's only selling an owner a crank at cost. You may look at this large fleet as a safety benifit, since problems are more likely to found and reported. Bottom line Lyc's reputation (as well as Contenentals) has been damaged. They no doubt have egg on their face and a massive lawsuit and huge warranty payout losses.

It is what it is. You decide, but to go to an experimental engine and experimental installation for better reliability than a Lyc is............... not logical. I think even the staunchest alternative engine advocate, who is intellectually honest, will admit the reliability of the Lyc is an admirable target to aim for. Whether they can match it I don't know, however better tracking of batches like certified engines is key, because the day Subaru makes a bad batch of cranks or rods is a statistical possibility. No doubt Subaru does track this, but who knows if you will find out about a failure in that batch. If you own a Lycoming you register it with them, used or new, so you are notified if there is an issue with your engine.
 
Last edited:
Well if we are counting all types of "system problems" causing power loss and forced landings let's be sure that carb ice is thrown into the mix. There have been hundreds or thousands of forced landings caused by carb ice in over the last 25 years I'd bet. I personally know of 3 aircraft from my home airport which have suffered this fate in just the last 12 months alone. Since the carb is required kit on an O Lyco... Injected Subes and Lycos are of course immune to this one at least.

The rod failure on the EA Sube with coked oil in the valve covers- not sure you can blame that on the engine itself but I'll accept that one too if carb ice is allowed. I guess if we ran a Lyco to 325F oil temps, the rods would let go too.

Lots of high use Lycos go to TBO with minor or no work and lots don't especially ones with low use. The Lyco IS the most proven choice for most, no denying that. The alternatives are available for those who don't wish a Lyco out front for whatever reasons. :)
 
Apple to Apples

Absolutely not! Carburetor ice engine failure is operator error, as is airframe ice or fuel exhaustion. Ross, if you are going to make objective judgements about engine reliability, you are going to have to compare apples to apples.
 
Last edited:
Running engine temps past proper limits is operator error as well. Forced landings as a result of carb ice are still forced landings due to the equipment fitted to the engine. A carb combined with inadequate diligence has led to many engine stoppages- this along with fuel exhaustion are the leading causes. No carb- no carb ice. I agree, there should be no excuse for carb icing caused forced landings but this does not change the fact that dozens happen every year. Injection means this is one thing you don't have to worry about.
 
Ross,

Once again apples to apples. Lycoming builds fuel injected engines too.....has for years. Let's agree to isolate piloting issues from engine and accessory design issues.

Carburetor ice has been a part of aviation since day one. No more difficult to avoid than stall/spins, runway overshoots or nosegear porpoising. It's called aviating!
 
I see the seven main bearing thing brought up often, and is in the propaganda on the egg site.

1. They are very narrow bearings, I am willing to be that the bearing surface area is actually less.

2. They are smaller diameter, which means the journals are as well.

3. They would not stand up to the force of a direct propeller mounting...Jan even admits this. They simply are not as strong.

4. The PSRU's are also not as strong, which is why you cannot mount a metal prop. Jan says as much here too, but covers it with his typical WAG by saying "Metal Propellers are too heavy for ANY aircraft"

5. Carb ice is 100% avoidable.

Other failure issues over the years, like the pump impellers, happen slowly and predictably, when that AD went out owners had hundreds of hours to comply, and many planes simply went to TBO without ever fixing it. The cranks are a rare issue, caused by a subcontractor, and thank god that these parts use the kind of materials tracking which allows the AD to even be issued.

As to the engine feeling like it would fall off the plane?...get real. I flew hundreds of hours in a 320, conical mount, Citabria, and the vibration is no big deal. But even if it were, I can make a lycoming feel perfectly smooth in exchange for 100LBS of extra stuff, especially if I am also willing to sacrifice reliability.

I do have an open mind, and when I was making the decision, I investigated the actual installation, wiring, plumbing, etc. I simply could not believe how many extra wires, pumps, relays, etc were necessary.

Would it be great if an alternative existed? You bet. I would be willing to stand behind one with similar or better: Cost, Speed/Fuel, Simplicity, Reliability, and Weight. Gee whiz, right now I cannot get any of those things.

And, because many who are filling out the ranks of this sport read these forums, I think it is important to seperate the hyperbole from the supported facts.

God bless the engineers out there who methodically work on this stuff. But it is NOT being sold as developmental, it is being sold as prime time, ready to compare, and equivalent. Heck as of last night, Jan's glowing statements about the PSRU he sold to many was still on his website.
 
Jconard said:
The cranks are a rare issue, caused by a subcontractor, and thank god that these parts use the kind of materials tracking which allows the AD to even be issued.
Exactly. I'm not for or against alternative engines. But it seems to that those on the alternative side of the fence often cite the Lyc ADs as a disadvantage to using certified engines. I think the lack of ADs are a disadvantage of alternative engines. It seems to me that auto engine manufactures could fall victim to bad subcontracting just as easily as Lyc but the difference is, they might never admit it publicly and therefore you might never know it until some major engine component failed suddenly on takeoff. I wouldn't be happy to get an expensive AD but I'd be thankful for it.
 
Jconard said:
I see the seven main bearing thing brought up often, and is in the propaganda on the egg site.

1. They are very narrow bearings, I am willing to be that the bearing surface area is actually less.

2. They are smaller diameter, which means the journals are as well.

3. They would not stand up to the force of a direct propeller mounting...Jan even admits this. They simply are not as strong.

4. The PSRU's are also not as strong, which is why you cannot mount a metal prop. Jan says as much here too, but covers it with his typical WAG by saying "Metal Propellers are too heavy for ANY aircraft"

5. Carb ice is 100% avoidable.

Other failure issues over the years, like the pump impellers, happen slowly and predictably, when that AD went out owners had hundreds of hours to comply, and many planes simply went to TBO without ever fixing it. The cranks are a rare issue, caused by a subcontractor, and thank god that these parts use the kind of materials tracking which allows the AD to even be issued.

The Sube main bearings are not designed to handle prop loads nor has this ever been suggested by anyone. It is merely fact that most modern engine designs use a main on each side of a throw. This reduces bending loads and vibration and crank weight. A Sube does not need a huge heavy crank or bearings because it has substantial pin overlap, is very light (22 lbs. for the EJ22) and very short. Since these engines must have a gearbox to reduce output shaft speed, this handles the prop loads as well. No magic or rocket science there. These cranks are strong enough to deliver 960hp and over 150 1/4 mile passes without failure. Strong indeed!

The metal prop would introduce C of G issues to these installations so lighter composite props are used. Good results have been had with both electric MT and Quinti props.

Carb ice like CFIT accidents are totally avoidable yet continue to claim lives. The point is carb ice will never be the root cause in an injected Lyco or Subaru forced landing. While we might have to worry about other things bringing us down, carb ice won't be on my list.

The Lyco crank issues have have had various causes, two of which were certaining Lycoming's fault, crank gear pressing procedure change and their own directives to the subcontractor to add vanadium to the mix. It can be argued that these are all Lycoming's fault as they never adequately validated procedural or metallugical changes before selling these items to the public. QC was not up to snuff. Not ready for prime time either as it turns out, hence the ADs.

Propaganda vs. marketing. Hmmm. You don't see Textron warning people in their ads that they have had a spot of trouble recently with ADs affecting thousands of engines. The new head of Lyco in an interview with TAC admitted there have been some serious concerns as of late and he is out to fix them. Good for him and Textron I say. The big thing that has many people concerned here is that the older engines were pretty good and then they went and changed processes and things got worse. This is unexpected as a design matures. It should always get better through experience, not worse.

Jan has published SBs on his site for the fuel pump issues and others along the way as more is learned. I think a post last week to his site sums up how many people feel about their Sube engines: This fellow has been flying for 50 years and 29,000 hours. He now has 700 on his Egg Sube. He states he wouldn't trade his Eggenfellner Sube for any certified engine. Many of his flights are at low level over water and he has no concerns. Post #26944 on Jan's forum for the whole story.
 
Last edited:
ADs

joe gremlin said:
... those on the alternative side of the fence often cite the Lyc ADs as a disadvantage to using certified engines. I think the lack of ADs are a disadvantage of alternative engines. It seems to me that auto engine manufactures could fall victim to bad subcontracting just as easily as Lyc but the difference is, they might never admit it publicly and therefore you might never know it until some major engine component failed suddenly on takeoff. I wouldn't be happy to get an expensive AD but I'd be thankful for it.
I always thought that an AD is the result of problems in the field. In other words, some poor guy ends up with a broken crank, then another crank fails, then another, and then Lycoming is forced to issue an AD. If this is not the way it works, how would Lycoming know that an AD will be required?

To find out about problems with the Subaru engine, you can just get in touch with your local Subaru garage, and ask them. They have the equivalent of service bulletins, but I don't remember what they call them. They are quite rare, as you might expect.
 
Your Killin' Me!

You're killin' me Mickey! Cars have recalls all the time! What are you talking about???

The high-time Egg is about 700 hours. You don't have enough data to even
begin to make durability assessments.

Ross accumulated less than a 100 hrs before his first crash. Frank Hinde had three failures in his first 100 hours (See Aug Kitplanes). Egg was eating dirt about a month ago with his latest creation. Where do you guys get the nerve to lecture on Lycoming shortcomings???
 
Yukon said:
You're killin' me Mickey! Cars have recalls all the time! What are you talking about???

The high-time Egg is about 700 hours. You don't have enough data to even
begin to make durability assessments.

Ross accumulated less than a 100 hrs before his first crash. Frank Hinde had three failures in his first 100 hours (See Aug Kitplanes). Egg was eating dirt about a month ago with his latest creation. Where do you guys get the nerve to lecture on Lycoming shortcomings???

Please list the recalls on EJ series engines from Subaru/ Fuji.

You might not be aware that RAF has accumulated over 100,000 Flight hours over the last decade with ZERO catastrophic failures on EJs. Another fellow in Europe accumulated 680,000 km on an EJ25 before a head gasket went. Over 10,000 hours without touching it at the average speeds driven there.

Jan had not released the belt drive for production at the time of the forced landing. It was still in testing. Testing showed a problem so the design was shelved. I'm thankful Jan was testing it thoroughly and that he is ok. I was flight testing my installation at the time too and take full responsibility for my bad aviating. I've made changes to my systems so as not to repeat this scenerio. No different from Textron scrapping thousands of crankshafts based on field experience.

Ignore the crank issue all you want. It's for real and it's cost Textron and Lyco owners millions and ticked off a lot of owners enough to look at better clones or auto engines. While we debate this ****, Jan is busy ordering more engines from Japan. It doesn't matter much what you or I say here, buyers are still lining up in record numbers so obviously they don't see things the same way. Different strokes for different folks.
 
Jconard said:
And, because many who are filling out the ranks of this sport read these forums, I think it is important to seperate the hyperbole from the supported facts.

QUOTE]

The guys flying behind Subaru engines are not spreading hyperbole. There's no reason to.

Flying behind the engine speaks for itself. It's like a mini Merlin, a real gutsy solid smooth experience. If one doesn't like it, don't do it. No one really cares. For sure not me.

The Subby is fun and that's what this is all about.

dd
 
Reliability

Ross,

Since RAF isn't a recommended engine supplier for RV's, I don't know much about them.

Egg is working on his 4th gearbox configuration. When this next box hits the market, it will have no history whatsoever. No thanks.

You didn't have an airmanship accident, quite the opposite. You did an extrordinary job of dead-sticking an electrically-dependant airplane with little damage. My hat's off to you! Your new warning light and buzzer is no assurance that this won't happen again. Magnetos and mechanical fuel pumps were developed for aircraft use because they are reliable. Electronic single ignition and fuel injection was developed for cars(mostly) to meet pollution requirements. Tell me again why we are using it in aircraft?
 
Gentleman

David-aviator said:
Jconard said:
And, because many who are filling out the ranks of this sport read these forums, I think it is important to seperate the hyperbole from the supported facts.

QUOTE]

The guys flying behind Subaru engines are not spreading hyperbole. There's no reason to.

Flying behind the engine speaks for itself. It's like a mini Merlin, a real gutsy solid smooth experience. If one doesn't like it, don't do it. No one really cares. For sure not me.

The Subby is fun and that's what this is all about.

dd

David,

You are such a gentleman! No better spokesman for Subaru! I'm just sorry I
forgot to add you to my failure analysis.
 
Jan had not released the belt drive for production at the time of the forced landing.

Lies, Lies, Doggone lies....

I know at least 3 builders who were SOLD the belt drive, and placed firm orders. None were delivered, but they were on the market.

Here is a copy from the website of the B.S. used to sell these people. By the way this is still on the site attracting new customers.

Quote Jan:

OK, I have had questions, from all corners, regarding my decision to revert to a belt driven propeller speed reduction unit.

First, lets review what we are trying to do. The task at hand is to transmit engine output RPM to a usable propeller RPM and also to create a structure that can support the load of a rotating and pulling / pushing propeller.

Key design criteria, in a aircraft application are:

Light weight
redundant systems
Longevity
Cost

The new drive unit meet all but the last criteria. It's gold attachment cradle, the red main housing, the propeller hub and it's drive sprocket are all hard anodized 7075 T6 aluminum with internal large diameter, precision ground, hardened and plated hollow steel shafts.

It is fully redundant to itself, using three independent, yet integral, belt drives to transmit power to the propeller. The main, centered drive shaft is continuous from the engine, all the way through the propeller hub, with the propeller spinning around it. The main shaft is supported in 12 bearings. 6 for the main housing and another 6 for the propeller sprocket and drive forces are evenly distributed around the main shaft, canceling side loads. Lubrication is independent for each drive system without any possibility of contamination from internal drive chains or gears.

Belt installation is not difficult. Belt life has yet to be determined but will be several hundred or possibly one thousand hours. There is no tracking or tensioning of the belts. The design is light, strong, redundant, low maintenance and smooth turning without drawbacks found in traditional belt drives such as side loading the crank shaft, running on greased bearings, designing with large center to center distances, thereby introducing the expansion / tensioning problems related to this.

Now, the cost is another story :)

Jan


End Quote.

As I have said before, no problem with accurately marketed programs. But, for crying out loud the crazy claims should stop.
 
Actually, Fuji/Subaru HAS built airplanes..

Jconard said:
Why wouldn't the PSRU failure count? PSRU is a necessary component of this setup, so its failure is a system failure.

And thank you for verifying that Fuji does not build Airplanes...contract parts are obviously not airplanes, and I do not mean to point out the obvious when I suggest that an apache is a helicopter, and that a helicopter is not an airplane.

Aero Subaru FA200

And the powerplant is...
:rolleyes:
 
Yes, no Egg belt drives were delivered as testing continued and deposits were taken I understand. Unlike those thousands of crankshafts which already made it to customers... To Textron's credit, they're stepping up to the plate financially on the last ones.

If you have ever talked with Jan, you'd know he is a driven, enthusiastic, positive personality usually wearing a big smile because he loves what he's doing. He's excited about new things coming down the pipeline because he's innovating and bringing new ideas along, testing and proving or disproving them. Perhaps people doing these things get carried away sometimes- well shoot us then. At least we're doing something new that many are interested in and not flogging the same old thing.

And yes, starting over with a new gearbox design means starting from scratch to test and validate the design with probable delivery delays, a reality of any design in any field of endeavor which does not pan out. Customers will likely end up with something better and safer at least. Jan is trying to get 3-4 new drives built and flying to accumulate flight hours quickly to validate the design with minimal delays.

While some people beat on Jan, I marvel at what he has accomplished with a small crew in a short time. Conversely, here is giant Textron, billions of dollars, lots of engineers, tens of thousands of engines flying, millions of hours and decades of experience- and what, they can't build a proper crankshaft anymore? If I was running Lyco, heads would have been rolling years ago. Seems like they are on track again but they have a long ways to go to get customer confidence back again from many. We need Lycoming and I do hope they get it right this time under the new management. The clones and alternatives have risen as a result of these debacles and slow feet. Lyco loses while others take their market share. That's business.

My accident was certainly an airmanship deal! As an old and wise friend used to say to me when I screwed something up- "you weren't paying attention kid!" Absolutely spot on. I had the ammeter right there on the panel staring at me and a voltmeter on my EGD available too. Had I not been so complacent about things, I might have checked them and discovered the fault earlier and it would have been a non-issue. You cannot miss the 95 db buzzer now and I have a second battery and buss now so that is not going to happen again. I could have learned from Jan to have that 2nd battery and I guess he could have learned something from me on fuel systems so now we all share our good and bad ideas with everyone, hoping to make things safer. Test flying has its hazards.

Since my Sube journey began about 7 years ago, I've talked to hundreds of interested people and pilots at fly ins, chapter meetings, via phone and E-mail. Many are VERY experienced pilots who've flown many thousands of hours behind Lycos. They all have a story to tell and they are not all bad of course. One fellow offered a story from Vietnam where they ran Lyco GPUs. He said they ran day and night at 2800 rpm WOT. Only stopped to change oil every 100 hours or when they got around to it. He said he never saw one blow up on his tour, they just got really tired after 3-3500 hours and burned lots of oil. I was impressed. I was impressed again flying a friend's 7A with an O-360 FP. It worked well. I have fine memories of flying Cherokees and Grummans that wouldn't have been possible without Mr. Lycoming.

The common threads that most tell me in considering a Sube or alternative engine is that they are tired of the:

High cost- acquisition and maintenace. Many of the people that I've talked to have not gone to TBO without serious problems along the way. They don't want to deal with "special" break ins, plug cleaning, oil seeps, smells, valve adjustments, sticky valves, cracked heads and crank ADs. When overhaul comes, they don't want to drop $10K to do it again.

High vibration- This is more subjective. A Grumman Lyco installation is not very smooth. An RV is not bad and a 172 is actually pretty smooth. Must be in the mounts. A flight in a Sube powered plane readily convinces even jaded pilots that no Lyco is smooth compared to a Sube.

No work- Pilots are either getting lazy or expecting more "car like" operation of their aircraft engines. Rightly or wrongly and technical arguments aside, they want to turn the key, no priming, no pre-warming, no shaking, no fuss and have it start and run immediately well. They don't want to deal with carb heat or mixture controls. They just want to fly the plane and not worry about this stuff.

They want something new. The reasoning is they don't drive a 1950s Chevy nor would they want to in most cases so why shouldn't they have something more modern available?

I'll certainly admit that I'm always asked by pilots what if... I reply, the prop windmills and you better be up your glider skills. Kinda like being up to date on your prayer skills if you fly at night over the rocks single engine. Bang you're dead. That one sets them thinking! We take risks in different ways.

Most of Jan's customers seem very happy. I've talked to a couple who are not. Par for the course in any business. Things like higher than desired temps in hot conditions are little different than lowering the nose on a Lyco plane in similar conditions. They are not causing forced landings and fixes are on the way. There are few other complaints that I hear other than delays which are safety issues in my view. People will wait a bit for something better.

The real reason we like Subes is the attention it gets us. Whether we are forced landing near a small town in Nowhereville, being the center of attention at a fly in or seeing fellow pilots stream out of their hangars as we check the windsock overhead due to that lovely, distinct sound, we are it!
:rolleyes:

Mostly pilots I talk too are just plain impressed that I did it all myself and the thing actually works well (finally). My friend with the 6A Lyco C/S who did the Kitplanes fly off with me made me feel especially warm inside when he said after the flight "Ross I'm pretty impressed with what you've done there". Les is the smartest engine man I know, building record holding drag and Bonneville engines for years. A valued opinion from someone in the know about things mechanical.

Other most asked question: Are you offering engine kits? NO. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top