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.

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

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.

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.

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

Rick Courtright wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@iname.com:

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.

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.

"Edward Hayes" wrote in news:gUChg.144220 $ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

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: for an example of one company that specializes in subaru aero conversions.