Quantcast

Interesting Subaru Site

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Jman

Site Developer
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,881
Location
Pacific NW, USA!
I was surfing around and I found this site at http://www.geocities.com/plmjohnson/ that has a lot if great information. Very well put together site and he breaks it down for people as dense as I am :p . I am looking at both the Subaru and the Mazda. Anyone else out there considering using a Subaru?

Jman
 

rcrosby1961

New Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
1
Location
Florida
I'm just finishing up my empennage kit and have looked into the Subaru package from Eggenfellner. He sells the most complete kit I've seen yet, if your building an RV or a Glastar.
 

Jman

Site Developer
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,881
Location
Pacific NW, USA!
I just went to the Eggenfellner website and I can see why you would say they are the most complete package you've seen. Seems like a very professional outfit. I noticed that the Eggenfellner site says that they have sold 135 engines to RV builders and 36 to Glastar builders. Are you definitely going to go with a Subaru in your RV?

Jake
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
Now, this guy sports some pretty compelling evidence for the Subaru junkie!!!



subaruaircraft.com

...especially the supercharged variant!

I am a bit of a stick in the mud, though. A Lycoming is simple and tested over time. Hmmmmm, at least I don't have to make a decision tonight!

:D CJ
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
I really am falling for this engine.

Anyone here have a Soob in their plane?

I would like some tips and pro's and con's.

I just may do this instead of a Lyc! It seems to be the better decision based on the dwindling 100LL situation.

:) CJ
 

Fernando

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
2
Location
Keller, TX
The more I research the Soob the more I am convinced. Even the auto shops I have contacted locally rave about the EG33. AND - it's already sitting in the garage. Kinda hard to give that up.
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
I stopped by the Soob car dealer today, just to see how their land lubbing counterparts looked.

Traditionally I purchase only U.S. Made products, but I would like to see this experiment through with sufficient "Due Diligence" and determine it's merits (or demerits) on the ground first.

On first glance it seemed like every other econobox on the market. I am not compelled by the vehicle, but am quite interested in it's powerplant.

The analysis continues...

:confused: CJ
 

Dave

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
17
I hate it when this happens...

Just got through checking out subaruaurcraft.com... This guys stole my idea!?!?! :mad:
Seriously though, it looks incredibly like the one I have in my shop under development right now. There are some differences obviously, but the basic layout is the same. I think I need some investors to speed this project up a bit, otherwise I'm going to have people telling me that *I* ripped off this Eggenfeller's design. :(

Dave
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
Isn't that the way it goes? I have had some ideas that have gone the same way too!

Have you tested any engines yet? It looks like the Soob boxer is a perfect candidate.

:confused: CJ
 

Dave

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
17
Not as yet. I'm still construction the prototype, hung up on the two most expensive components. I'm here working desperatly to scrape up the funds and then I see someone with a similar idea that is farther ahead... thats depressing. :(
My version is based on the EA-81 and will include fuel injection and be upgradable to turboI definately wanted to have both normal aspirated as well as boosted as many folks are in the market for the lower HP (80-100) and dont want to spend an extra $5000 for the extra boost.
The intention is to make as near of a bolt-in swap package for Lyc O-235 or Cont O-200 as I can offer.
If this is eventually successful, I'll look into EJ-22 based conversions and whatever else the market wants.
If anyone wants to invest in the project, let me know... I'm starting to think that maybe this is a game that one man cannot play all alone.
 

Archie

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
19
Location
New Hampshire
Subaru

Do not hesitate to seriously consider one of these.
Jan Eggenfellner was an aviation student at the college where I taught, and was a forward thinker. (albeit eccentric)
Yes, the Lycosaurus is a proven engine. It has been proven to contain 50 year old technology, and costly parts/repairs. Even the formula for oil consumption from Lyc. allows as much as 2 qts/hr. Does your car consume that? Ever wonder why they need an impulse coupling? Does your car need one? AC plugs gap at around .016. Autos, (even older ones) are .060/.080. Does that tell you something?
Let's consider this from another perspective: If you were to look at a new car, and found it was powered by a Lycoming, Franklin, or Continental , would you still be interested in it?
I conduct seminars at various places, including OSH, and invariably attack the AC piston manufacturers. They are the reason no progress has been made in AC piston engines in the last 60 years. (or should it be tears).
They have a captive audience that will pay whatever it takes to repair their engines, and get the plane flying again. (Don't try to blame the FAA for this, it starts at the factory)
Enough, already.
Archie
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
Well, while we are bashing the "Lycosaurus" ... why have they not made enhancements to this "time tested" design? I know, liability.

Suck it up and do something ingenius instead of sitting back on your laurels! It's not like they have't made enough money through the years to cover some R&D and liability expenses!

Anyhow, How does the Egg engine lubricate itself while inverted?

:confused: CJ
 

Dave

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
17
I would have to respectfully disagree with Archie, at least in part, in his assertion that the technology curve is being held down by Lycoming et. al.
While its blatantly obvious that certified iron is 60 year old technology and that this fact, in itself, is a bad thing for general aviation, I would not put the blame in the engine industry.
I cannot believe for a second that there is any benefit to keeping the masses locked into the stone age. The assertion that they are keeping us flying antiques to hold a customer base just does not make any sense. The certification process and airworthiness regulations do a fine job of keeping thier customers captive to the original manufacturers without thier alledged greed being personified by archaic technology. If the FAA forces us to keep knocking at Lycoming's door, where is the motivation to keep us flying stone knives and bear skins?
Secondly, Lycoming and Continental are in competition with each other. Why are they not engaging in competition? Wouldn't they be advancing their technology to beat the other out?
The answer is not with the manufactureres or the FAA. The problem is the courts and the lawyers and the greedy uneducated non-flying public that sues at the drop of a hat.
The problem is with the judges that rule on these cases without knowing what they are even dealing with. The problem is with the juries that award multi million dollare settlements to people who dont deserve a dime.
The problem is the cost of developing new improvements, following the FAA certification process and paying the liability insurance premiums is just to damned expensive. Factor in the low production numbers and the next thing you know, that all new Lycoming "21st century - smart as your new car" engine will cost the costomer around a 1.5 million each.
Dont believe me? Look at the experimental marketplace. Here we have marvelous new technologies, exciting new designs, ambitious plans by entrepanuers (sp) and a happy encouraging industry. why is experimental aviation thriving while Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft are dying off? one word. Liability. In experimental aviation, you and you alone are responsible for your airplane. You break it, its your fault. you fly it into a cumulo-granite cloud and kill yourself, it's your fault. You dont keep it in good repair and crash it, it's your fault. And no one is going to award your widow 6 million dollars because you are a dumbass and Lycoming has 100 Million in the bank.
Sorry if I got off on a rant here, but this is something that I am very passionate about. We, aviation professionals,.. hell, ALL of America need to stop blaming everyone else for our missfortunes every time we smell dollars. THIS is what is keeping technolgy down. Its not greedy corporations, its greedy litigation. :mad:

Dave
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
Ummmmm, YA!

Dave, you hit the nail on the head! Only, what can we do about it?

I suppose we are doing the only thing we really can do. We are building our own planes with performance commensurate with the times.

:cool: CJ
 

Archie

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
19
Location
New Hampshire
Aircraft Engines

gentlemen;
While I did not incorporate litigation as part of my testimonial, I have contacted the engineering departments of both Lycoming and Continental. They could not answer technical questions posed due to the fact there is no documentation, and they had no way to answer.
This is engineering? I am also a degreed engineer, and was so insensed, that a person in my field could not answer simple questions.
Also, you may find that Continental may sell off their Mattituck division after acquiring it for the Aerosance FADEC system, which is an obvious step forward technologically speaking. I interviewed their test pilot during thge development stages several years ago.
I would be happy to address specifics in this field should anyone be interested.
Also, if you just do a search on my full name, several articles I have written will, in all probability, show up.
Archie Frangoudis
 

David Clifford

Active Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2003
Messages
30
Location
Howell, MI 48843
I'll carry it one step farther on what's to blame. Liberalism. Get rid of all the democomies in office and replace them with conservatives who believe in personal responseability. Lower and cap the unreasonable jury awards. The filing attorney pays ALL court costs regardless of verdict. NO APPEALS!!! The democrats have darned near ruined this country. Time to take it back.
 

Archie

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
19
Location
New Hampshire
Originally posted by Captain_John
...but can anyone tell me, does it work UPSIDE DOWN!?!

:D CJ
If you are addressing the Continental FADEC system as designed by Aerosance, I will say yes. (provided the oil & fuel supply systems)
are designed for inverted flight. The engine fuel is by throttle body & pulsed injectors. (same as a modern gasoline automobile)
Archie
 

Captain_John

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
699
Location
KPYM
Thanks Arch,

I understand the EFI system, and provided the pickup is submerged in fuel there shouldn't be a problem with consistent flow.

The electrics (save the battery which will probably be a Concourse gel cell) are indifferent to attitude or orientation.

It was the oiling system which I am questioning. Essentially, is there an inverted pickup system for the Soob's or is it unnecessary due to it's design being more tolerant to dry running. I am sure housewives everywhere will run these things low on oil & pressure as the (automobile) fleet ages. I am sure the nips have taken dry running into consideration at the engineering table at one time or another, but to what extent?

:confused: CJ
 

Dave

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
17
The Subaru Engine does not have any inherant provisions for dry running as Subaru engineers never took into consideration motorists that drive thier cars upside down. In general, however, Though they do design things to be more tollerant of owners who neglect thier maintenance responsibilites, I wouldn't think that it would be of issue here as the folks that are converting these engines to aviation use are basically "zero-timing" the engines before selling them. All new bearings, fine resurfacing of journals, etc.

I can tell you that the Subaru Conversion packge that I am developing DOES have inverted oil capabilities and IMHO, anyone building aircraft engines ought to be putting (at very least) considerable thought and consideration for "less than straigh and level" operation for more than just a few seconds.

Sorry for starting that off topic thread about politics and legal issues. I can't help myself sometimes, and since I am also a political talk show host here in Boise, I am easily distracted in to the subject.

Is there a political/legal room on homebuiltairplanes.com? I still got plenty of fire to give on the subject still... :D
 
Top