This is just to say that it’s a lot of FUN, but DANGEROUS. Just be Very careful.
Oops, Thanks. I was typng that on an itty bitty BlackBerry touchscreen. Thanks for posting it correctly. I’ll go back and edit/fix it now that I’m home and have access to a real computer.
John Denver did not build the VariEze that he was killed in. Unfortunately the builder did not design a good fuel delivery system. This is a similar plane: http://sites.google.com/site/variezesst/Klausbanking2.jpg
And I knew people who were killed in factory built spam cans. So what?
One big consideration not mentionmed is the comparative weight of a modern emissions controlled engine vs. that old fashioned one - or is it a factor? I would think that any newer engine would be too heavy???
I know a guy (not personally) that could definitely help out…Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden. He is a captain who flies Boeing 757’s for Astraeus Airlines, as well as a professional fencer (even though that has nothing to do with it, lol). He does fly on charter flights for them, not to mention for his band. If you could get a hold of him, I am sure he would have a great opinion.
I used to date a widow with three kids. He flew a homebuilt aircraft, and one day, while his family was watching him, one of the wings fell off. She rushed to the crash, and he died in her arms.
It was held on by a bolt that failed. He didn’t buy his bolts at the hardware store - this was a name-brand extra-strong bolt sold specifically for use in that application, by the company that offered the plane kit. The engineer who designed the plane showed that the bolt should have been up to the task. The company that made the bolt looked at the engineering calculations, looked at the sheared bolt, and offered a hefty settlement out of court.
Rich widow, but she and the kids were seriously screwed up, even after five years had passed. I can’t say that there ain’t no guarantees in life. In this case, there was - but the problem was that the guarantee paid off in cash, and that wasn’t good enough. Whichever engine you choose, don’t forget to say your prayers.
Ed
I am flying my homebuilt RV-9A after 4.5 years of building. Two thoughts and a suggestion.
- I have a friend who is flying a RAF gyro copter with a modified Subaru engine and is happy with it.
However Several pilots I know who have used Subaru engines in RV’s have been dissappointed in them and after a year or so swapped them out for a Lycoming… (very expensive!) See Van’s Airforce or Vans Aircraft RVator for a side/side comparison. - If you want to economize, get a mid time aircraft engine in good condition. Much less expensive and more dependable than a Subaru. (not to mention the headaches of installing a non-conventional engine.)
There is a reason aircraft engines are different from auto engines!
Jim Frisbie, RV-9A Flying as of 10-14-09
Texases said “Porsche tried to break into this market with their flat 6, seemed like an obvious fit, but found it very difficult. I don’t know if they’re still trying.”
Porsche gave up after a few years and many millions of dollars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_PFM_3200 Their engines are not popular among homebuilders as they are as expensive as a Lycoming.
There Are Old Pilots And Bold Pilots. But No Old Bold Pilots !
I hold a pilot license and have worked at airports. Nobody should be so bold as to build their own aircraft, period. Trust me, Ive seen it all. They are accidents looking for a place to happen.
Leave the aircraft building up to the major manufacturers, don’t try it yourself. I’d appreciate it if these things were kept out of the sky even though carrying an “experimental” label and not being allowed to caryy passengers (too dangerous). They could fall onto innocent people when they crash.
There is no question as to which engine one should choose if they are foolhardy enough to “build” their own aircraft, the Lycoming.
I’m sorry to rain on Ed’s parade, but this is the best advice he could receive.
CSA
CNN.com - Wal-Mart heir dies in plane crash - Jun 28, 2005
Wal-Mart heir John Walton died Monday when his ultralight aircraft crashed after taking off from an airport. He was a Billionaire and a good pilot.
Lets not be comparing apples to oranges here. Mr Walton was flying a CGS Arrow ultralight. That is not the least bit similar to the airplane that Ed is building other than it had wings and an engine. See: http://www.cgsaviation.com/twoplacearrow.htm Its engine was made by Rotax which got its start building small engines for various applications. Rotax - Wikipedia They are now owned by Bombardier, which also owns the company formerly known as Learjet.
I too hold a pilot’s license. I LIVE at an airport. I have a 59 year old Cessna 170B. This residential airport’s reason for existance is the fact that a bunch of guys who were EAA members got together about 45 years ago and put it all together. Most of them are gone now as they were in their 30s and 40s when the airport was conceived. Not a single one of them died in an experimental aircraft. One died in a spam can (factory built plane) in 1970. There are about 30 planes hangared here. About half of those are home built. It’s not as though the process of building a plane is difficult. It’s not. Thousands of folks do it every year. The process is overseen by a representative of the FAA at every step. One can’t just build a plane and go flying. I know one of the local FSDO guys. He respects homebuilders. If they don’t do something right, he tells them where they went wrong, and the problem is reworked.
Ed should continue with his project and enjoy many happy hours of flying. If he were closer, I’d go with him in a minute (assuming he already has his license). If he wants to drop in, I’ll go anyway.
First, for the doubters about homebuilt aircraft, the RV-9A that my friend Jim Frisbie built is probably similar to Ed’s project. There are over 6,600 of these and related models of these planes flying. Jim’s plane will take 2 people 800 miles nonstop at 180 miles per hour. A Cessna with the same engine will fly at about 130 mph.
About Subaru’s: When I checked at the NTSB database of accidents involving RV-9’s there were 13 accidents listed (zero fatalities). Four of them involved Subaru engines. That’s way out of line for the Subaru representation in the fleet.
You won’t save that much money, if any. A basic brand new Lycoming clone O-320 engine from Aerosport runs $22K, not $25K. Mattituck is near you and their prices are probably similar. When you go to sell the plane, you won’t get nearly as much if it has a Subie. Insurance will probably be higher.
A mid-time Lycoming will run about $10K, and will likely last you close to 1,000 hours more, and at 50 hours per year, it will be 20 years before you need an overhaul. Just be sure to have the engine checked by a competent person before you buy.
Lastly, FWIW, a local RV-9A builder runs a repair shop specializing in Japanese cars. He says he would never put a Subie engine in his plane.
I suggest you forget about alternative engines and build the plane as Van’s designed it–with the Lycoming or a clone.
Doc, Every Time I Hear An Old John Denver Tune I Think Of His Wasted Life And How By Making Poor Decisions He Wound Up “Flying” A Dangerous, Home Made “Eperimental” Aircraft.
It’s especially sad because I’m sure he could have afforded a real airplane. He was just given bad advice that cost him his life.
CSA
Another Life Wasted And Family Screwed Up By A Person Believing That Home Made Is Equal To A Factory Built Piper, Cessna, Or Beechcraft. What a shame.
It’s agood thing there was money to be had from the non-aircraft enablers.
CSA
Ed - I’m an RV builder, and am currently dealing with the engine decision. You’re getting some educated replies to this forum, but we could help you better if we knew what you’re building. You said it’s riveted, and has 30-foot wingspan, and the engine was $25K - which Vans wants for an O-320 - so I’m guessing Vans.
I, too, thought “there’s been a lot of development in auto engines in 60 years - an auto conversion should be better!” However, the engine conversions typically require a PSRU and a cooling system, which add weight. The reason Lycomings have stood the test of time, is they are engineered to provide reliable, lightweight power.
Listening to you on the show, you sound a bit over your head. Whatever you’re building, you need to get involved in some communities. Car Talk, while great, is not the place to discuss airplanes. Consider joining a local EAA chapter. Another resource is http://www.kitplanes.com . They have sections on powerplants.
The main thing that occurs to me about this is that keeping the engine in running form and properly inspected for airworthiness may be quite a bit more expensive if it is not the kind of engine the mechanic is used to working on. Even if the automotive engine does turn out to be a workable solution, it may not be cheaper in the long run, since maintenance is a major part of owning the plane, and the engine probably receives a large portion of this. The trade-off between cost of acquisition and cost of ownership should probably not be ignored.
Speaking as a licensed aircraft powerplant mechanic, I’ll say that using an automobile engine in an aircraft is not a rare thing at all and is not a problem if done correctly. The Subaru 1.8 with a gear reduction box is a good one and a properly built VW air cooled engine has also been used many times.
The big issue in my opinion is how well the rest of the aircraft is assembled as many a homebuilt has smacked the ground.
Hi Ed,
I am an A&P I.A. with over twenty years in general aviation. I am involved in several building projects. I like the thought of the suburu engine,I even drive one, but I only like the thought. I would go for the certfied aircraft engine, Lycoming,Continental. Their saftey record can’t be beat. If you have not joined, JOIN THE E.A.A. the wealth of talent and knowledge is awesome. P.s. I am currently working on a 1946 cessna 120, Pietenpol, and fly a cessna 172 with the 180hp. constant speed prop. I wish I could see your project and offer any assistance you may request.
When I was kid in the 1950s, I spent a lot of time around power boats in California. Mostly they used automobile engines with heat exchangers to keep salt water out of the engine. Those heat exchangers failed frequently and in sometimes bizarre ways. I’d be really nervous about using an engine with a non-factory cooling system bolted onto in in an airplane. The nice thing about a boat when the engine fails is that its altitude is zero feet and you are almost always someplace where you can work on the engine. Neither is true of an airplane.
I’d also worry a little about carburetor icing. We tend to think that hasn’t been a problem since the 1920s. But my 1979 Mazda GLC carb used to ice up occasionally driving thru fog on nights when the temperature was close to freezing. Not a big deal once I figured out what was going on. That is to say, not a big problem … in a car. Just pull over (like you have a choice) and wait a few minutes for the ice to melt.
In addition to Kitplanes, check http://www.vansairforce.net/
That’s the place for Van’s aircraft builders.