Subaru conversion???

[HiGeez]

Is anyone using a Subaru 3.0 L engine on the Cozy, in particular the Eggenfellner application? Any word on this 6 banger? They (Eggenfellner)provide firewall aft packages. A word from the wise would be helpful here.

My other choice is the EX-360. Mamma agreed to the Cozy as long as it has a "real" engine in the back. Even when I said it's going to get

e x p e n s i v e (not that a 22K EX-360 or the H-6 Eggenfellner is cheaper). I'm a rotary man but I'd never convince her that it was a safer approach to a powerplant We watch our oldest son crash in a AA-5 killing the other pilot due to engine failure (water in the gas) so she's a little apprehensive. Understandable. Thanx.

 

HiGeez

[Jon Matcho]

Is anyone using a Subaru 3.0 L engine on the Cozy, in particular the Eggenfellner application? Any word on this 6 banger? They (Eggenfellner)provide firewall aft packages.

I don't know of any Eggenfellner kits being using in Cozys, but Phillip Johnson is doing his own work with a Subaru EG33 engine: http://www.canardzone.com/members/PhillipJohnson

[Nathan Gifford]

Is anyone using a Subaru 3.0 L engine on the Cozy, in particular the Eggenfellner application? Any word on this 6 banger? They (Eggenfellner)provide firewall aft packages...

While there are people installing Subarus in Cozys, I have not seen any offerings by the Eggenfellners for a firewall aft installation. They seem pretty adamant Sun-N-Fun 2005 about pusher arrangements. If you point to a specific Eggenfellner engine package product for pusher aircraft please post it.

[argoldman]

While there are people installing Subarus in Cozys, I have not seen any offerings by the Eggenfellners for a firewall aft installation. They seem pretty adamant Sun-N-Fun 2005 about pusher arrangements. If you point to a specific Eggenfellner engine package product for pusher aircraft please post it.

 

Spoke to Jan (Eggen...) the other day and at OSH. They have a 6 banger that they are testing and cooling proofing on their Defiant. I assume he meant the rear engine) He claims that he will be able to provide a FW back for the COZY.

 

Be advised that this engine requires a constant speed (or variable pitch) prop. He hates IVO props.

 

He also mentioned that they are developing a bolt-on supercharger for that engine--

 

Very interesting!!!!!

[HiGeez]

I did receive a reply from Jan and he said YES to the firewall aft engine application for the COZY (9/9/05). Also, same day, MT prop people described the prop used on the Defiant test bed MTV something. No mention, even though I specifically asked, about a CS prop. The did say they have a fixed pitched prop designed for pusher applications with the Cozy and Defiant in mind. Hmmm, more research needed.

Miss my spell checker... HiGeez

[Todd Sanderson]

Do yourself a favor and put on a nice O-360 or IO-360. I have been the Eggenfellner route and it is not as great and easy as you think. Do a google search and you will se what I mean. Magnum engines in Fort Wayne, IN can build you a very nice engine brand new for $20,000 to $25,000 depending on your needs and it will be beautiful. They recently built me a 275 HP IO-360 with 12:1 ceramic pistons with all new parts and dual electronic ignition for $25,000.

[Nathan Gifford]

No one said it would be easy. The Eggenfellner engine package may be no cheaper than using IO-360. Rebuild costs are only somewhat steep, but nowhere near as steep as a Lycoming.

 

The advantage of the package is that it has good reputation. There are lots of RVs flying with them. The rumored FWA (Fire Wall Aft) solution that the Eggenfellners are working on may be interesting. I just don't want s/n 001.

 

Link to Magnum Aircraft Engines. Too bad they don't have any more info posted on their site.

[Todd Sanderson]

Let me expand on the Subaru Conversion that comes "firewall back." You receive an engine on a mount that is ready to install except it requires far more work to install due to the liquid cooling, extra fuel runs, and ECM hookup. The cooling system requires much tweaking to stay in acceptable ranges and the drag you introduce with the radiators slows you down. The installation is heavier than a lycoming and burns the same amount of fuel. Forget about using car gas above 10,000 ft (or above 8,000 to be safe) or you will be very prone to vapor lock. Yes, it may not leak any oil, but who cares with the engine in the back? Yes, it may not cost much to overhaul, but the average homebuilder flys their baby about 60 hours per year which equals about 18 years before needing an overhaul in which time we will probably use neither engine. Next, if you do break down somewhere you can find a mechanic anywhere (and parts) to assist you in fixing your Lycoming. If you want power up high you need supercharging in which Jan uses a roots style blower which is the wrong application for high RPM engine operation. A centrifical blower is much more efficient as it produces exponential boost as RPM is increased while the roots blower produces the same boost across the RPM range and builds too much heat. It is much easier to just put in high compression pistons in a Lycoming and limit your throttle a little if you don't want to make full HP down low.

Check Brian Myette's page http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm He is definitely much better equipped with building knowledge than the average builder and he has been messing around with his Subaru install for over a year now. He would be flying with the Lycoming. While I think it is neat that alternatives are being used, it does not make sense to risk your life on an engine that does not produce any real advantages. The DeltaHawk shows the most promise in my opinion, but it needs time to tell. I really think that kerosene-based compression ignition engines such as the DeltaHawk will the the final answer, but I will continue to use the tried and true Lycoming until then. With over 2,000 hours experience in from o-320s to TSIO-540s I have yet to have one quit in flight or not start. As a matter of fact, I have never done any maintenance other than normal except for the aircraft I have owned that had Continental engines and they were mostly cylinder problems on turbo-charged models. Hope this helps.

Also, does anyone have any advice for my Gyroflug question in this same category?

[Nathan Gifford]

Or you can try Simple Digital Systems RV6 with Subaru.

[Jon Matcho]

Let me expand on the Subaru Conversion that comes "firewall back."...

Todd, excellent points, and most appreciated! No offense to all on the Subaru side of the fence here, but I'm looking forward to my Lycoming or clone installation when the time comes.

 

I moved this thread to the Engines area of the forum.

 

Also, does anyone have any advice for my Gyroflug question in this same category?

I'll add to that thread, as I have a lingering thought that wants to get out of my head.

[raydog]

Try Keith Spreuer, met him in Big Bear recently, nice guy.

His installation is impressive.

He's got the SVX 3.3L, OE engine parts, Ivo prop, and a check engine light to boot.

http://www.geocities.com/kspreuer/Airplane.html

 

ray

cozy IV, chp 10

[Nathan Gifford]

There are pros and cons on engine installations. There are very good reasons to go the Lycoming route. For one, you are much more likely to get your plane flying in record time. Additionally, there is far less development work to get the engine airborne.

 

The downside is the cost and the cost of maintenance.

 

It is true, that IF the Lycoming makes 2,000 hrs for a lot of pilots that will be enough. There flying days might be done by then. However, if the engine does not make 2,000 hours, for whatever reason, you are going to spend huge amounts of money for the repairs.

 

The truth is that such repairs are not common, but neither are they rare. If you hang around almost any airfield, someone's plane is probably grounded waiting for an infusion of repair cash.

 

As far as mogas goes, its been noted by Dust, et al, that many flights are going to be done on avgas. Mogas is just not that common around airfields. Still if you can do a flight on mogas, the savings are considerable.

 

No one should just dismiss auto conversions either. A lot of pilots are working on Subarus and rotary conversions (heck even a diesel or two too). Every year these implimentations get better and better. The Eggenfellners alone boast of 400 a/c with their package.

 

Todd is quite correct about the problems associated with putting an engine in pusher arrangement. It ain't easy. That is why so many people are watching the Eggenfellners. If their reputation wasn't as good as it is, who would care. If they put a Subaru in FWA a lot of people will notice and photograph.

 

People who just start building today really do not have to commit to any engine today. Engine selection will be among the last things you do. By that time more powerplants will be available and maybe even one that isn't too hiddeously expensive.

[argoldman]

There is another reason for going automotive (sube 6 cyl or rotary) and that is the extreme reduction in fatigue causing vibration from those four huge cylinders firing.

[Todd Sanderson]

Good points Nathan and I want to definitely explain that I do not want to offend anyone about their engine choice. Experimental aviation is all about trying new stuff and I think it is neat that new engines are being tried, but the Subaru just doesn't give you any more reliability, fuel savings (fuel burn wise) or performance increase and since there is not enough TT established there is no base line for experienced reliability.

The closed-loop fuel system does not help any since the engine uses WOT setting at the RPMs we use. Eggenfellner has modified this by reducing fuel pressure, but it is kind of Micky-Mouse in my opinion. Variable Valve timing does not help either since we again are using very high RPMs where the VVT is ineffective. Add the headache of cooling systems, twin fuel pumps, and redundant electrical systems to make sure the ignition and ECM have continuous power and you have to start to question if the conversion is worth it. While the Lycoming could be expensive to repair they usually just require routine maintenance with an occassional $1,000 cylinder to replace. We must put this in perspective though when you consider your new baby will probably cost you $75,000 for a basic machine to $175,000 for a loaded plane with CS prop, Glass Panel, Leather interior, etc. The last thing I want to do in my plane that I spent 10 years building and $100,000 of cash infusions is to install an engine that may lead me to crash and destroy my plane. If you are truly an experimenter more concerned about trying new things then maybe a Subaru, Rotary, Diesel, APU turbine, or whatever is just right, but if you want to fly with a proven and well established engine that has much support around the globe, then a Lyco or Continental is the way to go.

We also must be very careful not to buy a different engine just because we think it will be safer/better. Many people jumped on the Innodyn engine concept because it was a turbine and turbines MUST be better. Well, what they fail to remember is that the Innodyn is simply a single-stage centrifical compressor with very little efficiency and it has almost no time to speak of in the air for reliability boasting, yet people initially stood in line to get one. The problem is that the "factory" will not post any HP or fuel burn numbers verified by a dyno and no reputable engine builder would ever market an engine without verified dyno results. Also, PWM injectors do not add any efficiency to a continuous-combustion turbine engine and with only a single stage compressor the turbine will be no more efficient at altitude than a NA piston engine. I will lay odds that the Innodyn engine will burn roughly 20 to 22 GPH making 180 HP or less on a dyno. With JETA costing more than 100LL and no known reliability this is definitely not the way to go.

I know that my wife and kids only fly in a plane with Lycoming, GE, or Pratt under the cowl. With 2000 hours of personal experience (and I'm a low time pilot relatively speaking,) I just do not have a good reason to try anything new right now - I'll leave that to the experimentors. Good luck to everyone no matter what you decide on.

[Len Evansic]

When I got into justifying building a Cozy, I was dead-set on using a Subaru engine. The further I go, the more apprehensive I am about every engine option that is available to us.

 

My current mindset is that after I win the lottery, I'll get a new Lycoming clone engine like the XP-360 TNIO model to get the plane in the air, and then build up a firewall-aft Subaru package with a PRSU that has built-in CS prop capabilities to bring down the vibrations. Since I'm fairly sure that I won't win the lottery, and such a PRSU doesn't currently exist, I am left to worry myself with a backup plan.

 

All three of the planes that I fly in my flying club had to have their Lycoming engines replaced this year, one from an in-flight failure and the other two because of signs of impending doom (all three before TBO). The cost of these overhauls was a real kick to the groin of our club, and it gives me pause when considering any rebuilt Lycoming. These weren't new engines, but were overhauled several times before by qualified A&P's. It is the uncertain age and condition of the components on the vast majority of available Lycoming engines that scares the crap out of me and makes me keep thinking about automotive conversions.

 

Yes there is a lot of work and a lot of compromises to go the Subaru route. I'm willing to go that way if only to blaze a trail to an economical solution that avoids the uncertainty of used Lycomings.

 

-- Len

[rnbraud]

Now I am totally inexperinced, just starting building, and am not a bona-fide engineer, but ... I just gotta throw out an option: Jabiru 5500.

 

It is an "airplane" engine, designed from the start. It is simple internal combustion engine, it is air-cooled just like Lycommings and continentals. It is priced well, and it is very light and compact.

 

From the outside looking in, it seems it has all the features we are looking for: 180 hp, smooth operation via 8 cylinders, very light being mostly aluminum, an airplane design from the start, quiet, my personal pet peeve, witha muffler, compact size, and I think burns both mogas and avgas.

 

I bring it up here because it doens't get mentioned often, but seems to be the ultimate alternative to Lycommings and Continentals.

 

Please comment or flame!

[Nathan Gifford]

...but the Subaru just doesn't give you any more reliability, fuel savings (fuel burn wise) or performance increase and since there is not enough TT established there is no base line for experienced reliability...

...All three of the planes that I fly in my flying club had to have their Lycoming engines replaced this year, one from an in-flight failure and the other two because of signs of impending doom (all three before TBO)...

This is the kind of horror story that does not seem all that rare and again is not the rule either. To be truthful no one knows how well the engines were treated or whether the problems slipped by the first A&Ps. But this example is why people watch very closely auto-conversions.

 

While it is true that when you have between $75K-$175K tied up in an airplane, engine reliability is a pretty big issue. However, FAA stats are full of engine failures on certified engines. Whether the fan stops on cert or non-cert, you still have the same problem.

 

Again, I would expect a well maintained, pampered, and properly operated cert engine to have fewer failures than a non-cert. The problem is locating that beast.

 

What I do not know, but am following closely, how many non-cert failures were failures of the engine itself as opposed to the way the builder installed it. Granted, a failure is a failure, if the engine itself is still sound then the major problems are the design of the installation.

 

For example, RV6guy had an engine failure because he did not notice that he was losing battery power. That is hardly the fault of the engine itself, but the problem has been corrected.

 

A pilot of rotary powered aircraft had a failure of the radiator he was using. It was a converted a/c core--one that had failed before. I don't think he using a/c cores anymore two forced landings was enough.

 

There have been fuel issues from piping to pumping too.

 

And, of course, Burt Rutan agrees with Todd too. Burt always advised not test both airframe and engine at the same time. If you are going to install a non-cert put it in J-3 first to work out the bugs.

 

...Add the headache of cooling systems, twin fuel pumps, and redundant electrical systems to make sure the ignition and ECM have continuous power and you have to start to question if the conversion is worth it...

Electronics over mags! I think a lot of people would do that in heartbeat. Besides if you need one fuel pump, most people would like two anyway. If you are going with glass panels, then redundant electrical systems are already a give.

...Innodyn engine concept because it was a turbine and turbines MUST be better. Well, what they fail to remember is that the Innodyn is simply a single-stage centrifical...I will lay odds that the Innodyn engine will burn roughly 20 to 22 GPH making 180 HP...

I think Innodyne number 7 GPH/100hp. Can they deliver that? Heck let's see the deliver the engine first!

 

BTW, I don't doubt your numbers on the turbine, but I will give Innodyne the benefit of the doubt until someone actually flies one. The thing to remember is that the Innodyne is based on the old Solar T62 which was made for a small helicopter (that was never produced. The engine was then used in genpak for decades.)

 

I would say if you had to commit to engine tomorrow and do not feel up to the development work, go with a cert. However, in few years a non-cert engine may well be a reality.

[denver_longez]

I’m new to posting here, but have been following for over a year. I thought this might be a good place to drop my 2 cents in.

 

Engine choice, I believe, really should be driven by your tolerance for experimenting verses desire to get the airplane in the air. I very much admire the guys that are plowing the way with auto conversions and new aircraft engines. I would just make sure you are choosing an engine for the right reasons and I’m mean reasons that are right for you.

 

Some factors I considered:

 Ease of installation

 Reliability (proven track record)

 Performance (not advertised, proven)

 Desire to experiment

 Costs (acquisition & maintenance)

 Knowledge of the engine (troubleshooting and being able to do maintenance myself)

 Serviceability (Where can it be serviced if I can’t do the work)

 Fuel cost and availability

 

I would caution choosing an engine because there is some perceived cost savings. I have watched many builders go with something other than a Lycoming because of costs, only to discover a whole bunch of additional cost they hadn’t planned on. And, to add insult to injury, after lots of time and additional money, have ended up with an engine that doesn’t perform as advertised. No one from my EAA chapter has been able to demonstrate any significant cost savings by going with a “cheaper” alternative. In some cases, it has been quite the opposite. I have also watched individuals try to save money with a Lycoming by buying a run-out engine without good records only to be bit by lots of unanticipated cost.

 

My point is that it is going to cost a lot of money to hang an engine on the front or back of your plane and, in the end, you are likely to spend roughly the same amount of money regardless on which way you go. Also, initial acquisition costs are only part of the equation. Consider ALL costs.

 

I’m not trying to start a philosophical war on engine choice (although I’d be glad to have those discussions too). I would just encourage those that have not decided to make sure they are choosing for the right reasons.

 

Just some thoughts.