pilots on crack?

G

glasceus

i think i read something about pilots who modified forester engines and
put them in their aeroplane. one question: are these pilots on crack?

swirl pot? -sigh-
 
glasceus said:
i think i read something about pilots who modified forester engines and
put them in their aeroplane. one question: are these pilots on crack?

Actually, yes. They aren't great airplane engines.
 
In reality Subaru engines make very good aircraft engines and there is
a web site with all the details.
 
Edward said:
In reality Subaru engines make very good aircraft engines and there is
a web site with all the details.


Oddly enough, all the comparisons I've always read compare injected and
turbocharged Subaru engines to normally aspirated, carburated Lycomings
and Coontinentals. <G>

Converted, non-certified for flight, auto engines are subject to
certification and operating limitations per FAR's.

Most Subaru engines are chosen for flight because they're cheap. A
major part of the cost of a certified aircraft engine is the
certification process.
 
glasceus said:
i think i read something about pilots who modified forester engines and
put them in their aeroplane. one question: are these pilots on crack?

Personal risk is a funny thing. Last night
I was browsing a website about divers who
built their own rebreathers. That's serious
crack consumption to me...

OTOH, I'd probably feel pretty good about
a subaru engine in the front of a plane.
Usually, unless things go terribly wrong in
more than one way, an airplane engine will
only kill you if it fails catastrophically
and I haven't heard many accounts of Subaru
engines throwing rods or breaking cranks.
 
I'd much prefer a Soob sucking me along rather than that 1930s technology
Continental I've got on the 182.

Jim
 
RST said:
I'd much prefer a Soob sucking me along rather than that 1930s technology
Continental I've got on the 182.

Hi,

I won't argue the Continental or its Lycoming cousins aren't a bit long
in the tooth, but when a design's still going strong after nearly 75
yrs, it tells me something. Like "KISS" works? A lesson I sure thought
someone missed the day I sat beside the road in 108 deg temps w/ a
broken timing belt... recommended change interval, 60k miles, actual
mileage on the belt, approx 52k. At least I was in my car and not trying
to coast down and miss the side of the hill next to the road!

Stealing a fellow's sig line from another forum I visit, "Lose not thy
airspeed lest the ground rise up to smite thee!" I'm not a pilot, but
even I can figure that one out... :D

Rick
 
Hi,

I won't argue the Continental or its Lycoming cousins aren't a bit
long in the tooth, but when a design's still going strong after nearly
75 yrs, it tells me something. Like "KISS" works? A lesson I sure
thought someone missed the day I sat beside the road in 108 deg temps
w/ a broken timing belt... recommended change interval, 60k miles,
actual mileage on the belt, approx 52k. At least I was in my car and
not trying to coast down and miss the side of the hill next to the
road!

Stealing a fellow's sig line from another forum I visit, "Lose not thy
airspeed lest the ground rise up to smite thee!" I'm not a pilot, but
even I can figure that one out... :D

Rick

You don't want to get me started on this subject. :)

All the feds want is total control of anything you do, in, near, or while
thinking about an airplane. Of course they're immune from liability for
any adverse consequences of their regulations. Did you know that for a
pilot, failing to report a change of address to the FAA is a felony?

Later,
Joe
 
The most commonly used Suby engine were the EJ82? which used a gear
drive for the camshafts. www.eggenfellneraircraft.com uses the Suby 6
cyl. engine which has a roller chain drive for the camshafts. I'm not
sure there are any aircraft for sale that uses the TB system but,
maybe single owners who build their own lightweight airplanes.
 
The most commonly used Suby engine were the EJ82? which used a gear
drive for the camshafts. www.eggenfellneraircraft.com uses the Suby 6
cyl. engine which has a roller chain drive for the camshafts. I'm not
sure there are any aircraft for sale that uses the TB system but,
maybe single owners who build their own lightweight airplanes.

Actually most of the EAA folks around here (about 40 mi east of Oshkosh on
the shore of lake Michigan) prefer the older EA81 pushrod motors. While
the power isn't as high as later models the power to weight ratio is
better.

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between what works for the
Experimental Aircraft Association and what commercial aircraft are allowed
to do. Every aircraft sold commercially in this country has to have an
approved type certificate. Once a design has been flight tested and
approved nothing, I repeat NOTHING!, can be added,changed or modified
without an approved Supplemental Type Certificate. It can take months or
even years of testing to get a STC approved and then have only a limited
market. Auto gas STC's are a good example.

Most light planes run just fine on automotive gasoline. By car standards
they're really primitive. It's common to have a mixture control next to
the throttle and to manually set the fuel air mixture after reaching cruise
altitude. I haven't checked lately but twenty years ago the difference
between auto and aircraft gas was about $1.35 a gallon. On a machine that
burns 6-10 gal/hr depending on throttle and mixture settings that starts to
add up pretty quick. The EAA submitted a small mountain of test data and
other paperwork to the FAA and got them to issue STC's for running auto gas
in certain aircraft engines. If your light plane has an engine on the
approved list you can buy a STC from the EAA and then legally run auto gas.
At the time I checked into it an STC for auto gas meant you had to use auto
gas exclusively. Fueling up with the wrong gas is a felony, even if the
plane has been documented to run on the stuff.


That was twenty years ago but I seriously doubt the regulatory situation
has improved any. :-(

Later,
Joe
 
Thanks for the update Joe. I thought it was the 82 series but, I stand
corrected.
 
the implication that they are less safe is unwarranted, or at least it
isn't born out by accident reports. the leading cause of accidents is
"pilot failure" not "engine failure".

see: <Aircraft modified Subaru engines> for an example of one company
that specializes in subaru aero conversions.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
14,030
Messages
67,736
Members
7,528
Latest member
unclehorm

Latest Threads

Back
Top