# Interesting Subaru Site

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### David Clifford

##### Active Member
Dave,
Political talk show host ehh?? What side of the fence do you ride?? PLEEEEEEEASE tell me!!!

#### Dave

##### Member
I'm on the right side, of course... There aren't very many lefties in the talk radio biz.

#### David Clifford

##### Active Member
Thats true thank goodness. 'Course, they got nothing of any value to say anyway and no one to listen to them!! Glad two meet you sir!!

#### Cy Vanover

My $0.02 on the subject After reading this post I thought I'd throw in my thoughts on using a Subaru engine. My extended family drives and has driven Subarus exclusively for well over a decade. I'm the only family member who doesn't since Subaru didn't make a truck when I was in the market. Anyway, my point is this...although these cars do have small things that go wrong with them from time to time, I cannot remember one instance when my family has EVER had ANY trouble with a Subaru engine. These engines have never missed a beat and keep humming right along no matter what. Simple and routine maintenance is all that these engines need. Bottom line...I would feel far more comfortable flying behind Subaru power than Lyc/Cont/Franklin power ANY day of the week. Cy #### Zman ##### New Member I know this isn't aircraft application experience, but my wife had a 1993 Subaru Legacy wagon with the 2.2 liter non-turbo engine. It had 302,000 trouble free miles on the engine when she hit a deer on a freeway. Allstate said it was totaled because of the high mileage, but it still ran perfectly, even the clutch was original! I put in a new timing belt at 170,000 miles (it was still working OK, just preventative maintenance), but that was the only thing I replaced other than spark plugs. It never missed a beat and only used about 1/2 quart of oil between changes. It used that much oil since it was new, it never got any worse. If I could get a Subaru light enough for my Minimax, I would sell my Zenoah 2 stroke today. Subaru makes great engines. Last edited: P #### pecosbill ##### Guest Is anyone familiar with the Crossflow engine @ www.crossflow.com ? I'm considering it for my kit and looking for input. Their website of course touts it as the engine that will revolutionize homebuilts, etc. One concern I have with auto conversions (in general) vs. the Lycomings is the higher RPM's thru a reduction unit for the correct prop RPM's. Even at cruise, compared to what the RPM's would be in an auto, they would be significantly higher and over time seems that it would wear the engine out faster? Vic #### Attachments • 55.4 KB Views: 11,163 #### pylon500 ##### Well-Known Member G'Day from OZ, Hey DAVE for PRESIDENT You said it all man! In the ideals of Douglas Adams, 'We need to get all these legal types, and their followers on the 'B'-ARC! :angry: As for SUBI motors (and cars) I've had three and I couldn't go back to anything else which brings me to; FENANDO "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." OMG, I hope you only have a motor there and are not intending to carry out surgury on an SVX :wail: I've got one of these treasures, and to anyone who has not driven one (Captain John?) you owe it to yourself to research this vehicle and if possible have a drive :ban: You will find it hard to enjoy driving anything else ever again. : Hey Zman if you get a Soob in your MiniMax, how much do you want for your G-50? Arthur. #### Attachments • 53.9 KB Views: 3,138 #### orion ##### Well-Known Member Any engine, operating within its design parameters, should not really be seriously affected by the rpm of operation. One way to look at it is from the standpoint of fricition. You genrally have two types - static and dynamic. Static friction comes into play for parts that are not moving relative to each other but just starting their motion. Static friction is much higher than dynamic (example: car driving normally (static) versus a car skidding (dynamic)) and thus engines see most of thier wear from cold starts, not from running. Following this reasoning, the faster the rpm of an engine, the lower the fricition forces. Yes, this is all relative and the actual decrease is small in the operating range of a conventional engine, but the point is, from a fricitional standpoint, the high rpm will have little effect on the engine's useful life. For engine protection during long periods of inactivity and from cold starts, I highly recommend using the Microlon additive (see www.microlon.com). I usually don't believe in additives but a few years back I put this into my two place Grumman and the difference was quite amazing. It is FAA certified (for those with certified airplanes) and so just about anyone can use it to good benefit. The major problem that I see in the industry is the lack of good design practices in designing the reduction drive that we need to put on these engines in order for them to work well in our airplanes. There are quite a few out there but hardly any would I trust enough to actually fly behind. Looking over the choices, most are quite attractive, using a variety of professional methods of manufacturing. The probem though is that virtually none of them have any serious engineering behind them. You only need to read some of the advertising web sites to see the level of BS that they try to pass on as relevant knowlege. This is especially telling when you read their discussion of torsional resonance. Most don't even seem to know what it is, let alone how to account for it in the design. In short, it is very important to be extremely careful in making your selelction of the drive as this is the weak link in the chain, not the engine. #### Captain_John ##### Well-Known Member Hello All, Sorry that I haven't been checking in of late. It seems that this thread has gained a bit of momentum! Pecosbill, That Crossflow engine looks GREAT! The company really holds it in high regard with a$30,000 price tag! For that kind of bling, I would be more likely to get the Soob.

Speaking of which, Pylon... The 3.0 Liter Soob 190hp that Egg is developing now seems very interesting! Here in New England I need normally aspirated sea level horsepower in an RV. That 6 cylinder would seem to fill the bill!

How hard do you think it would be to whip up my own 3.0 liter Soob design using an NSI gear redux and off the shelf parts?

Orion, any ideas?

:whistle: CJ

#### orion

##### Well-Known Member
Good evening CJ;

From all that I've seen regarding the Subaru engine, I think it makes an excellent aircraft powerplant. The only remotely negative thing that I've heard is that it still takes Lycosurus pilots a while to get used to the higher rpms but otherwise it seems to be an excellent option for many of us.

Doing your own is certainly an option, especially if you get an engine from one of the Japanese used engine importers rather than a wrecking yard. As I hear the story, the Japanese emission requirements are so strict that every car owner has to get a new engine at about 25k to 30k miles in order to meet the extreme standards. As such, many of the imported engines have extremely low miles - barely broken in. The only drawback to these engines is that some of the US parts for these engines may not be interchangeable with the Japanese ones. However, since this usually impacts only the emission control components, it wouldn't be a big deal for aircraft applications. Usually you can pick these engines up for about $4,000, give or take a bit. Regarding the reduction drive - my personal opinion is that I would never get in an airplane with anything from NSI. While their products look impressive, there is little or no actual engineering behind them. Between that and the rather less than upfront business dealings the company is continually involved in, I'd recommend looking elsewhere. #### pylon500 ##### Well-Known Member Looking back on the site I see people talking about 3.0 litre Subi's and just realised that there are two six cylinder motors available. There's actually three, but their first one was only 2.7 litre (ER-27), although it is only a single cam (per head) which could make it a bit lighter. The popular six at the moment is the 3.3 litre (EJ-33) from the Subaru SVX, built between '92 and '97. The current engine used in the OUTBACK (as we call it here in OZ) is only 3.0 litre, but still 24 valve, quad cam and injected, possibly called the H6-30(?) However, this is supposed to be a totally new designed engine having undergone a weight loss program and been compacted to more easily fit into previously four cylinder locations I'm still trying to track down more info, but I do know they are expensive, being the current model and all. Arthur. #### Captain_John ##### Well-Known Member A new engine after 30,000 miles!?! Is that an exaggeration? Why don't they rebuild them? It makes me wonder if Jan Eggenfellner is buying his from there. If not NSI, then from whom? Who else makes redux drives? Pylon, from what I gather the 3.0 liter is the H6 engine. Is Eggenfellner the foremost individual in Soob powerplants? Do you know if he is willing to talk tech even if you don't buy from him? CJ #### Midniteoyl ##### Well-Known Member Jan makes his own (actually has them made for him).. NSI's I wouldnt touch... There are several more Soob PSRU maker out there, but mostly 4 cylinder ones.. (Stratus, NW Aero) But Crossflow has a 6 cyl and a PSRU also... The H6 is the 3.0 ... with a turbo 320hp(?) supposed comming out in 2005 Jan will talk to you, but dont expect much beyond marketing. Most tech questions get met with 'its a secret'. Anytime you question his motors you'll get the answer 'you need a Lycoming 'cuase your just not ready for the most modern airplane engine in the world'... Bah:angry: Anyway, try the Yahoo Groups - Subaruaircraft (Jan's), E-SubieForum (pro-NSI), Vansairforce (mostly pro-Jan), Airsoob, and Flysoob - for more info.. Jim edit: corrected groups Last edited: #### orion ##### Well-Known Member Several folks have emailed me asking my opinion of the Eggenfellner reduction drive so I thought I'd answer here. I have not actually done any specific analysis of this drive however seeing it installed on several aircraft, what I can say is that it certainly looks good. The trouble is that without a closer investigation, at times looks can be deceiving. Looking at their web site, the description and methodology behind the design looks quite good. I especially like the fact that the most stressed part of the case is machined from billet rather than cast. I also like that they're using their own gears rather than trying to use something from an autotmotive source. The only concern I came up with is in relation to their page that discusses torsional vibration. I came across this page at their site some time ago although this morning I couldn't find it. Reading through the material it was pretty clear that the author may have heard of the subject but really was not well versed in the subject, its effects, nor its solution. However, given their good history, and the seemingly good quality of their components, I would say that I would seriously consider taking a closer look at their products if I was in the market for a Subaru installation. #### jdhogg ##### Member just wondering i have a 77 mgb,im wondering as small as the engine is with a supercharger from moss motors if it would work ina aircraft of small size #### rangerider ##### Member My first notion, as I read this thread, is that the reason I am building an airplane in my garage is because I really love to fly airplanes. Within that are the practical, technical, economic, and even political issues to deal with, but the baseline I begin with is that I need an airplane that I can fly for what I can afford to pay. It may have been a while for some of you, and the shock effect may have worn off a bit, but when somebody tells me that they have a nice low-time, no prop strike, 100 hp engine -of any sort- and looks me in the eye and without blinking tells me he wants$9,000 or $12,000 for it, it surprises me. I get a little dizzy! I am a carpenter (Contractor). I know very little about engines. My ex-wife knows more about engines than me. (She also knows more about engines than I!) If I cannot fix it with wood and glue and nails and screws it doesn't get fixed, (imagine how delighted I was to learn that automobile manufacturers print SERVICE MANUALS) so naturally I am attracted to the Subaru option. This is actually new to me. I just learned about this, and frankly I am pleased and relieved that this option is available. I understand the existing AC engines are good solid proven designs, and that is the way it is, but i am delighted to find out that I am not alone when I say that, for what they cost, I am completely unimpressed. I went to the Subaru dealership the other day because I don't have any realistic sources for this kind of information myself, and asked about factory rebuilt parts and engines. The parts guy didn't know what an EA81 was, but he had an injected 1.8L engine on his books. You can actually buy a factory rebuilt block (lower half) for not too much scratch, and buy new heads and injectors and distributor,etc. etc., and piece together the whole thing for somewhat less than I thought. Maybe less than$3500 for a unit that you could drop into a car and drive.
Is that what we are talking about here? Will a stock engine with a few special parts and a reduction drive need much more modification to bolt onto an airframe and fly away? If that is a reality for less than $6-7,000 then I'm all over it. Somebody write the book and I'll buy it, read it and write notes in all the margins! I just don't see the value in a 60 year old engine that is loud, uses special fuels and juices, vibrates so much that it's bolts fall out, fatigues the pilot, and needs a$10,000 overhaul after a few years of regular use. Where can I get more specifics about actually getting one of these things into my airplane? Do I need to pay an engineer in California to do some secret operation that I could do in my garage for half the price? and does it have to take me three years of trial and error to get it right? Has anybody written any specific instructions to do so? Please tell me.

R

#### billkay

##### New Member
Eggenfellner Subaru

Wow! these are some very interesting threads, I'm actually the guy that designed the little radiators Jan was using until our company went out of business.
He surely is a forward thinker and has contributed more than he knows in advancing the alternative engine useage with the complete firewall forward package. I agree with Archie on just about everything but need to interject my 2 cents as far as letting the FAA off the hook for the lack of advancement in powerplants. The process of achieving PMA (part manufacturing approval) is flawed and I have to assume that a great deal of resistance to change stems from the lengthy qualification process and all the hoop jumping associated with it. Lycoming and Continental have a good product, it sells and they make money on it.
Lets consider what they would have to go through to certify a new design and then put ourselves in their shoes, a great deal of that 27 grand they get for these engines is an amortized amount for achieving and keeping a PMA they achieved some 40 years ago for these, but what would it cost today.
It looks like the FAA is realizing this and the new regs for the Sport/Recreational categories seem to prove it...the future of aviation is in the hands of the private individual, the forward thinkers, not only the Ansari prize winners but as well, the folks willing to bolt a Mazda or Subaru engine on a machine and take it into the air. Watch everyone belly up to the bar when they are fitted with the redundancy and safety of magnetos.
We could blame the legal system or insurance industry but that's easy, I would hope someday the EAA will lobby Washington with some fire in thier belly for reform in this area...there are alot of pilot lawyers in the air as well.
As for PMA there are companies (Pacific Cooler) that think achieving PMA is just fudging some data and submitting it properly. This as well is another thing that frustrates the FAA and makes the process that much more cumbersome.

#### n925cu

##### New Member
Sorry for not keeping up with the discussion, but regarding Crossflow, I would strongly recommend against them. Check this out from a close frined's personal experience:

Engine was delivered with the following parts missing:
ECM (Engine Control Module)
Fuel lines
Installation Manual
Reduction drive vent
Reduction drive dipstick
Coolant hoses to the radiator (never delivered)
Heater hoses to the cabin (never delivered)
Shipping crate (never delivered)

The engine was delivered with the following defects:
Incorrect wiring on the engine wiring harness
Incorrect wiring on the throttle sensor
Incorrect engine parameters on the ECM
Incorrect hole size for the bushings on the prop flange
Numerous oil leaks on the engine valve covers
Coolant leaks on the engine (these have stopped)
Oil leak on the reduction drive
Low fuel pressure
Engine tachometer configured for the wrong engine

It took them 5 years to deliver a defective engine that left their factory without ever being test run. They still cannot get it working and have broken every promise to come and get it running.

I will leave you to make your own conclusions, but I have determined that it is unairworthy. It is not even fit for a ground vehicle.