jhubbard
New Member
I have long been a devotee of the "tried and true" Lycs and Conts, and even the Rotax, for one reason: Track record. People are so critical of this so-called "Old technology", but IMHO fail to recognize the sheer success of simplicity. Hundreds of thousands of these things flying with a remarkable safety record is hard to argue with. These are AIRPLANES, people! If the engine quits, you can't pull over and call a tow truck! In this vein, I have also been, lets just say, skeptical, of the perceived benefits of Subaru et al, engines in aircraft for a few reasons. Let me preface these by saying that my only direct expereince with these engines is on a Kitfox that I was considering purchasing, and a friend's Europa.
1)Cost. People are quick to say that an auto engine is cheaper to aquire, but my research has shown that by the time you adapt it to aircraft use, in many cases you have spent more than you would on a turn-key aircraft engine. Case in point: Compare the cost of the Eggenfellner against a Rotax 912. I know there are more horses in the Egg, but the cost argument kinda goes out the window when after full FWF installation you have spent at LEAST as much as you would spend on a conventional installation.
2) Weight. On the above mentioned Kitfox model IV, the Soob installation outweighed the Rotax by 80 POUNDS!!! Although the plane performs well, it exceeds gross with full fuel and two people. The Rotax 912 still has room for baggage.
3)Dependability. Really? Based upon what? How many auto conversions are flying compared to the norms? Furthermore, given the anecdotal-at-best investigation of the NTSB into experimental aircraft incidents, how accurate can the safety claims be expcted to be?
4)"Engineering", or "Modern Technology". Ok, so none of us like to constantly fiddle with the mixture control. But other than that, what does this engineering really get us? A Porsche engine has purportedy better engineering and precision than, let's say, a Ford, but which one would you rather pay a mechanic to fix? How often is the Porsche in the shop compared to the Ford? Ok, I'm gettting a little off track here, but the fact remains that increased engineering and precision doesn't always equal dependability.
5) And finally, original intent of the product designer. These engines were built for cars, not airplanes. The Soob requires an RPM in excess of 5000 in order to produce the horsepower required. I know the engine doesn't redline until 6000+, but does ANYBODY drive their Subaru car at these revs for any length of time? There is a reason that the car is comfortable at 3000 RPM while at hiway cruise speed, and I suspect that life of the engine has something to do with it. If the engine really functions at its best at 5000+ RPM, then why isn't the transmission geard to produce that?
Really guys, I'm more interested in learning the whole story here, and my intent is not to bash these engines, so I figured that the best way to get real answers was to ask real questions based upon my very limited experience, so please, take these issues in the spirit intended. It's just that IMHO, the mere thought of a forced landing in the Rocky Mountains where I call home is so potent that dependability ranks head and shoulders above a few horsepower and a few dollars.
What are your thoughts?
1)Cost. People are quick to say that an auto engine is cheaper to aquire, but my research has shown that by the time you adapt it to aircraft use, in many cases you have spent more than you would on a turn-key aircraft engine. Case in point: Compare the cost of the Eggenfellner against a Rotax 912. I know there are more horses in the Egg, but the cost argument kinda goes out the window when after full FWF installation you have spent at LEAST as much as you would spend on a conventional installation.
2) Weight. On the above mentioned Kitfox model IV, the Soob installation outweighed the Rotax by 80 POUNDS!!! Although the plane performs well, it exceeds gross with full fuel and two people. The Rotax 912 still has room for baggage.
3)Dependability. Really? Based upon what? How many auto conversions are flying compared to the norms? Furthermore, given the anecdotal-at-best investigation of the NTSB into experimental aircraft incidents, how accurate can the safety claims be expcted to be?
4)"Engineering", or "Modern Technology". Ok, so none of us like to constantly fiddle with the mixture control. But other than that, what does this engineering really get us? A Porsche engine has purportedy better engineering and precision than, let's say, a Ford, but which one would you rather pay a mechanic to fix? How often is the Porsche in the shop compared to the Ford? Ok, I'm gettting a little off track here, but the fact remains that increased engineering and precision doesn't always equal dependability.
5) And finally, original intent of the product designer. These engines were built for cars, not airplanes. The Soob requires an RPM in excess of 5000 in order to produce the horsepower required. I know the engine doesn't redline until 6000+, but does ANYBODY drive their Subaru car at these revs for any length of time? There is a reason that the car is comfortable at 3000 RPM while at hiway cruise speed, and I suspect that life of the engine has something to do with it. If the engine really functions at its best at 5000+ RPM, then why isn't the transmission geard to produce that?
Really guys, I'm more interested in learning the whole story here, and my intent is not to bash these engines, so I figured that the best way to get real answers was to ask real questions based upon my very limited experience, so please, take these issues in the spirit intended. It's just that IMHO, the mere thought of a forced landing in the Rocky Mountains where I call home is so potent that dependability ranks head and shoulders above a few horsepower and a few dollars.
What are your thoughts?
