So Ed,
If you plan to be flying from Pennsylvania to Nashville, Tennessee, please go with the tried-and-true. If you are flying anywhere else, the Subaru should do fine.
Jack Easley
Nashville, Tennessee
Brian - this is a really good reply and you have lots of great info on your web site. But some friendly advice from a veteran web builder: remove the cloud background on your page; it makes it difficult to read the text. Light, solid background colors work the best. White, for example. Happy flying!
The biggest factors in engine failures both certified & auto conversions are fuel & ignition. The most successful conversions use redundant ignition & aircraft designed fuel systems.
The initial question Ed asked was about the robustness of the Subaru.
Evidence shows the engine is capable but the ignition, fuel & PSRU systems are the weak points.
If Ed called & said he had a Lycoming but wanted to know if the Subaru fuel injection or ignition systems were OK I am sure the opinions would be 99% No.
MY question for ED is; “Do you want to fly often or tinker often?”
BTW no one has mentioned the Guru of flying Corvairs, (A&P EmeryRiddle grad.) William Wynn, <www.flycorvair.com> advocates direct drive (no PSRU), dual ignition, & aircraft fuel systems. Must be a reason.
As we’ve been seeing here there are those who say go ahead and use the car engine and others who would go aircraft only.
When doing either, there is a wrong way of doing both…and a right way.
Ed, if using the car engine,
DO NOT COMPROMISE,
DO NOT CUT CORNERS,
do it the right way or don’t do it.
The E.A.A. will have your best knowledge base and guidelines.
( My dad and I owned a 1972 Cessna 172 that had a 182 engine installed. But it was a factory Lycoming with variable pitch (constant speed) prop. The mod was done by certified techs and FAA certified. )
Does it pretty much depend upon how well the plane glides and how proficient a sky diver Ed is ?
Having spent a couple thousand hours over the jungles of Papua New Guinea, I have a penchant for the tried and true.
From the Van’s aircraft website comes this quote “We are often asked about using non-aircraft engine conversions. We?d like to pass along a quote from a colleague in the homebuilt airplane business: “the best conversion I know is to take $8000 and convert it into a good used Lycoming.” This may sound a bit narrow-minded, but it reflects the basic truth: no non-aircraft engine has yet proven to be as reliable, available, and inexpensive (everything considered) as a traditional aircraft engine.”
Lots of Lycoming 320 & 360 engines listed in Trade-A-Plane. Might find a reasonably priced core Ed could use as trade in for a Lycoming certified “Reman”. Here’s the Lycming price list link: http://www.lycoming.com/utility/global-resources/2010-Aftermarket-Engine-Price-List.pdf
Mooney incorporated a flat six Porsche engine some years back, so how much different could it be to use the Subaru horizontally opposed engine?
Eddie! Eddie!
What were you thinking?! Calling these guys for Aviation advice! LOL
Seriously There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there NO old-bold pilots!
Go with the tried and true standard aircraft engine… fifty years of research and testing have gone into it and I’m pretty sure you want to fly this thing many-many times.
Remember, this will be an experimental when you fly it so triple-check everything before each flight. I’ve heard tales of pilots taking off with no oil (due to their excited state) in the engine for example.
I have to give a compliment to the Car-Talk brothers. They know their limits and it has nothing to do with the sky! Love the show and I listen every Saturday from noon till One in my neck-of-the-woods.
The difference: the Porche company put millions into the conversion, then gave up. Subaru, $0.
If I Had To Build One, I’d Put An Aircraft Engine In It.
Take all the time that would have been spent trying to make a car engine work in an airplane and devote it to concentrating on an airframe that’s not going to fall apart or have crossed controls, etcetera.
CSA
Ballistic recovery system anyone? It seems that would be a good investment,my friend had a immaculate used “Skylane” what a nice bird now he has a new “Baron”,it seems he has never had the homebuilt urge.Though I must admit I have considered it(I’m sort of into flying wings and lifting bodies).Forget the auto engine for this app,piece of mind is priceless(I do wonder how a nice aluminum Rodac would nestle into the belly of a good flying wing,with magneto ignition and a electronic ignition backup)-Kevin
As an avid motorcycle fan, I must ask the obvious:
Why have you decided to let the bike sit in the back of your garage instead of selling it to someone else who would actually enjoy the bike, that you have decided is too dangerous?
While your bike has been sitting in the garage for the past 24 years collecting dust, I have been out on the roads, enjoying a sport you consider is too dangerous.
Since you are a risk adverse person, you should sell it, and get it out of your life once and for all.
I already have 5 in my garage, so I don’t have any desire for another one at this moment in time, but I’m sure there’s someone out there who would be willing to fully rebuild yours, and let it see the light of day once again.
BC.
ACCORDING TO KITPLANES MAGAZINE THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT FLYING WITH SUBARU ENGINES. RATED FROM 105 TO 300 HP THERE ARE SEVERAL MODELS TO CHOOSE FROM. SOME WILL EVEN RUN ON REGULAR UNLEADED GAS. THE SUBARU SEEMS TO BE QUITE DEPENDABLE AND OFFERS TREMENDOUS SAVINGS IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. A LITTLE FACT CHECKING MIGHT BE IN ORDER FOR SOME OF YOU!
Please stop yelling. And obviously folks are using Subaru engines, that’s why the question was asked. A major alarm goes off when you say ‘offers tremendous savings in routine maintenance’. That shouldn’t be true, unless maintenance is being neglected. Once in service, any type of aviation engine should receive a very high level of maintenance, and the simpler ‘old-fashoned’ aircraft flat fours/sixes shouldn’t cost any more to maintain.
I’ve been listening to Car Talk for a long time, and never once have I heard any discussion of rotary-engine cars. Admittedly they aren’t very common although Mazda does have the RX-8 currently. Regarding Ed’s plane, I just wonder if he is aware that Mazda rotaries are being adapted for small aircraft. He might be interested in talking to these people
It Must All Be True (Even The "SEEMS TO BE QUITE DEPENDABLE ") Because It’s All In Capital Letters !
CSA
I’d pass on the Subaru engine Ed. As an alternative, some pilots are using a Harley Davidson V-Twin. It has the power, it’s a solid motor and it soulds great as you whiz by. You can see a few videos on You Tube.
Wasnt that old Harley loosely based on a aircraft engine? Noodlejet,ever hear of a" Wankel Fanliner"? -Kevin
“Car parts” have often been used in the construction of certified aircraft. Items such as electric starters, generators, alternators, voltage regulators, fuel gauges, ammeters, door handles, window cranks etc. manufactured for automobiles are often used in the manufacture of certified aircraft. If you’ve ever flown a Cessna or Piper, you’ve probably had some “car parts” in the airplane. Burt Rutan even used at least one old car part (taken off an old ford van) in the construction of his “Spaceship One”. Being a “car part” in itself does not make the part unsuitable for aircraft use. It makes no sense whatsoever to have to redesign a part specifically for aviation use when an automotive part will safely and correctly fulfill the needed purpose.
Some of the Lycoming engines are very good. The O-290 series are good, but I don’t believe that there is any factory support for them now (parts etc.). The O-320 series is excellent except for the O-320-H2AD which is total junk.
Anyway, the best bet is to join EAA and get involved in one of their local chapters. They can provide you with expert advise.