Can you build it for this price?

Wouldn't touch it with the Subaru engine. Flame me all you want, those auto conversions can create more problems than they solve.
 
Between the gear boxes, radiators, and every thing else, there is an uptick in accidents caused by powerplant failure in such aircraft. I buy an experimental, I want it as close to design specs as I can get. And preferably powered by an airplane engine if possible.
 
steingar said:
Between the gear boxes, radiators, and every thing else, there is an uptick in accidents caused by powerplant failure in such aircraft. I buy an experimental, I want it as close to design specs as I can get. And preferably powered by an airplane engine if possible.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Rotax and Jaibru are reducing the amount of auto engines installed in experimental aircraft.
 
steingar said:
Wouldn't touch it with the Subaru engine. Flame me all you want, those auto conversions can create more problems than they solve.
Click to expand...

First thought that popped into my head too, looks like a nice build. I wondered why go to all that trouble then mount a subie on the nose?
 
Because folks are trying to find alternatives to $10,000 overhauls.

I can rebuild a rotary for less than the cost of a lycoming jug. The prob is the only viable rotary maker out there is trying to make up their costs in the first 100 engines.

With a FWF package I would seriously do a liquid cooled engine. But the roll your own approach is just too problem prone. And I'm saying that as someone who helped do an auto conversion build.
 
I might do one of the VW or Corvair engine conversions, as they're liquid cooled and have a pretty good track record. That's about it though.
 
steingar said:
Wouldn't touch it with the Subaru engine. Flame me all you want, those auto conversions can create more problems than they solve.
Click to expand...
My analysis showed that homebuilts with auto-engine conversions had an accident rate about 20% higher than aircraft-engined ones.

Ron Wanttaja
 
As one who engineered and installed a Subaru into a Glastar, I can tell you that I would not do it again. The ultimate cost is as much as a Lycoming, the time to do it is ten times longer, the resale value is far less, and the reliability and longevity just aren't there. Picture an engine that relies on two electric fuel pumps and a single ignition system powered by the aircraft's electrical system, and you start to realize that any electrical hassle at all mean an end to the flight. If you lean the engine for DA purposes on takeoff you'll burn the valves; they are about the size of lawnmower engine valves, with tiny stems that can't transfer the heat fast enough. You could use all the computerized controls and manifolding that the car uses, but that stuff was 40 pounds or more.

Dan
 
wanttaja said:
My analysis showed that homebuilts with auto-engine conversions had an accident rate about 20% higher than aircraft-engined ones.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Which is why I wouldn't buy one. That, and I'll bet money that folks spent a LOT of time tweaking those those things.
 
A friend of mine built a Sirroco with a Ford V-6 conversion. He has had two forced landing, one did quite a bit of damage, and has overhauled the motor twice.

He freely admits he would never recomend an auto conversion of any kind again. The time and money he spent getting it sorted out just wasn't worth it.

The Corvair engine is viable but when you compare the costs with a O-200 I would still take the O-200.
 
Doggtyred said:
Because folks are trying to find alternatives to $10,000 overhauls.

I can rebuild a rotary for less than the cost of a lycoming jug. The prob is the only viable rotary maker out there is trying to make up their costs in the first 100 engines.

With a FWF package I would seriously do a liquid cooled engine. But the roll your own approach is just too problem prone. And I'm saying that as someone who helped do an auto conversion build.
Click to expand...

Check with tom@tomair.com.au and see if you get a reply. He did some rotary conversions that were pretty slick and well done and had a good drive as well. He may still have some of those drives.

If I was going to do an auto conversion I'd be doing it with the 12cyl Audi TDI out of the Q7 and hang it on the nose of a P-Baron.
 
steingar said:
Which is why I wouldn't buy one. That, and I'll bet money that folks spent a LOT of time tweaking those those things.
Click to expand...

This isn't about what you would buy..

The point was " you can buy cheaper than you can build."
 
About the only experimentals you see people selling for more than they have in them are RVs, and they've come down too. I think you could still make a "profit" (not including all your work time and time is $) building an RV if you did it right, but it wouldn't be much.
 
Tom-D said:
This isn't about what you would buy..

The point was " you can buy cheaper than you can build."
Click to expand...

No, if this is a well built copy and you wanted one, even if you wanted a different powerplant, if you buy this and repower it, you will be 10s of thousands of dollars and significant amounts of time and effort ahead of the game. What powerplant is in a particular experimental doesn't bother me if the price is correct. I can drop in whatever I want.
 
Henning said:
No, if this is a well built copy and you wanted one, even if you wanted a different powerplant, if you buy this and repower it, you will be 10s of thousands of dollars and significant amounts of time and effort ahead of the game. What powerplant is in a particular experimental doesn't bother me if the price is correct. I can drop in whatever I want.
Click to expand...

Above airplane + Merlin :idea:
 
steingar said:
I might do one of the VW or Corvair engine conversions, as they're liquid cooled and have a pretty good track record. That's about it though.
Click to expand...


My problem with most of the VW and Corvair conversions (I'm assuming you wrote liquid cooled and forgot the "not") is that they are direct drive and use spacers to move the prop forward some.

The rear main on those engines is only meant to absorb perpendicular and rotational force, there is no extra meat designed into it for accepting the gyroscopic loading of the prop. If you are going to fly straight and level or have a super-lightweight carbon prop, fine. If you are going to fly aerobatics with a metal prop, not so fine. The record on these conversions is FAR from perfect. Cranks breaking and losing props is a known event.
 
Yeah, I don't know if have a reduction drive to fail but keeping the thrust loads off the crank is an improvement or not.
 
Henning said:
My problem with most of the VW and Corvair conversions (I'm assuming you wrote liquid cooled and forgot the "not") is that they are direct drive and use spacers to move the prop forward some.

The rear main on those engines is only meant to absorb perpendicular and rotational force, there is no extra meat designed into it for accepting the gyroscopic loading of the prop. If you are going to fly straight and level or have a super-lightweight carbon prop, fine. If you are going to fly aerobatics with a metal prop, not so fine. The record on these conversions is FAR from perfect. Cranks breaking and losing props is a known event.
Click to expand...

That stuff is known to happen to airplane engines in acro. I stand by what I said. The VW and Corvair conversions are simpler (air cooled, sorry) and have a reasonably well proven track record. Far better than anything else. Probably more toil than an airplane engine, but less than a Subi.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
yup.

I bought my (flying) aircraft for about the price of the kit (without engine, instruments, etc.)
Click to expand...


When you consider the cost of a new 0-360-/180 horse is $39k, you can't built any thing cheaper than you can buy used.

I talked to one of the major salvage yards and they say they have a waiting list for used engines, and the prices are high.
 
Skylane81E said:
Yeah, I don't know if have a reduction drive to fail but keeping the thrust loads off the crank is an improvement or not.
Click to expand...

Building a reduction drive to handle anything less than 400hp is not particularly challenging. All in all a belt drive will be the lightest least problematic solution as it solves several issues. If you're worried about the strength of these belts, I wouldn't. Your typical automotive engine couldn't spin the supercharger on a fuel dragster and these belts hold up pretty well under those conditions.
 
Tom-D said:
When you consider the cost of a new 0-360-/180 horse is $39k, you can't built any thing cheaper than you can buy used.
Click to expand...

You can get a new experimental one from Lycoming for around 10k less than that, with roller tappets and injection. Still not cheap!
 
Yep, and you can always double up on belts with out a significant weight penalty for some extra saftey. Provided propper inspection and periodic replacement I'd fly behind a belt reduction.
 
Andrew Sego said:
You can get a new experimental one from Lycoming for around 10k less than that, with roller tappets and injection. Still not cheap!
Click to expand...

I'll have to look it up but the extra mass of roller tappets has been blamed for some valve train issues. People smarter than me need to figgure out if it's true or not.

Just food for thought and not consiquential to this argument


(man I need to learn to spell)
 
Skylane81E said:
I'll have to look it up but the extra mass of roller tappets has been blamed for some valve train issues. People smarter than me need to figgure out if it's true or not.

Just food for thought and not consiquential to this argument


(man I need to learn to spell)
Click to expand...

I got mine from Mattituck with standard sliding tappets, but they use a tappet lubrication system similar to ney nozzles. I don't know if I'm smart enough to explain it properly. :redface:
 
steingar said:
That stuff is known to happen to airplane engines in acro. I stand by what I said. The VW and Corvair conversions are simpler (air cooled, sorry) and have a reasonably well proven track record. Far better than anything else. Probably more toil than an airplane engine, but less than a Subi.
Click to expand...

I believe I said, "Straight and level fine". I have nothing againdt the VW or Corvair as long as they run a PSRU. As long as I can remove the gyroscopic forces from the rear main (not just crank but cap as well) and spin the engine up to cruise at 3600 and max at 4200, I'm quite happy with them. With those conditions met I can take a VW and make a reliable 180-200hp engine out of it and the Corvair a 300+hp engine. Thing is though to make them reliable at those HP for prolonged running, I have to buy some aftermarket parts and do some custom engine work. This doesn't come cheap. I will have about as much into building the engines as buying equivalent aircraft engines. However, from that point on, my cost of ownership per HP goes down dramatically because my overhaul costs will be in the 3-4 figure range since the expensive bits like billet crank and steel rods are durable goods.
 
Tom-D said:
This isn't about what you would buy..

The point was " you can buy cheaper than you can build."
Click to expand...
That is pretty much the way all experimental airplanes are. I have owned two Challengers and bought them way under what the price of the kit alone was. My A&P/IA just did a pre-buy on a Zenith 701 for a gentleman, the price was $10K less than the kit, not including engine and avionics.
So to answer your question, Yes, you can buy a flying one cheaper than you can build one.
 
steingar said:
Wouldn't touch it with the Subaru engine. Flame me all you want, those auto conversions can create more problems than they solve.
Click to expand...

If by problems you mean "efficiency, reliability, and modernness" I agree...but then you and I have a different definition of problems.
 
SkyHog said:
If by problems you mean "efficiency, reliability, and modernness" I agree...but then you and I have a different definition of problems.
Click to expand...

You'll spend more time and money setting putting up the conversion than just buying the aircraft engine. You'll then stand a much higher than average chance of crashing from a powerplant failure. I call those problems.

No one has ever figured out anything better than the engines we fly behind. The only reason people use auto conversions is economies of scale make them inexpensive. When it comes to aircraft, safe is far preferable to inexpensive, at least as far as I'm concerned.
 
Tom has a good point, there are many homebuilts out there selling for less than the sum of the value of the parts never mind the time it takes to build them.

I bought the remains of a Team Airbike for $1500 last fall. It came with an overhauled 503 [post accident] all the instruments and the wings and tail intact. Basicaly everthing but the fuselage was good. It took 2 weeks to weld another fuselage and the only thing left is to re-cover the wings and mount the landing gear.

I figure I will have about $3000 into the plane when I am done. I am going to use it to fly from home out to the airport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top