6 Subaru Powered Aircraft

A look at 6 successful Subaru powered airplanes with a combined total of 3600 flight hours

[@vumba1331]

Flying behind an EA81 engine, 300 hours no problems. Full EFI and electronic ignition setup which works well, no carb ice and soft idle so no lash on PSRU. Very smooth with great response, love it.

[@nzsaltflatsracer8054]

I have a turbo EFI EA81 on a Pitbull gyro with an Air Trikes PSRU & a 68" three blade, it's a great little engine for an old three bearing crank design.

[@vumba1331]

@@nzsaltflatsracer8054 Sounds like a great setup, any idea how many ponies you're pushing? What did you do about ignition and fuel setup. The heads on my engine are dedicated EA81 fuel injection heads which were made for the turbo setup. Keeping an engine solid and simple is the way to go, fewer problems.

[@nzsaltflatsracer8054]

@@vumba1331 That's what my engine is, it came out of a turbo wagon. I used an Electromotive crank trigger ignition with EFI driver. I live at 6k-ft so I expect it's about 100hp-ish on 7lb @ 4600 & I can chug along @ 2200.

[@vumba1331]

@@nzsaltflatsracer8054 Sounds a great little setup. I haven't gone with turbo due to weight but living and flying around sea level means that it's really not needed. Cruise at 80knots on 3,600rpm using 13 litres/hour, so cost effective. It is very smooth at those revs and I reckon the engine will last forever (-:

[@nzsaltflatsracer8054]

@@vumba1331 Simple, reliable, light weight & cheap, I like all of that! I bought another running wagon last year on Craigslist for $350.

[@willhibbardii2450]

Subaru manufactures nice equipment. One of my acquaintances produces a VW Bug conversion for rear engine drive conversions of the Bug replacing the VW engine/transmission with Subaru power. Reversing the planetary gearing to facilitate the setup was a fun project. I can see why Subaru powered aircraft is successful. Thanks for the video!

[@oldowl4290]

Fantastic video and great information. Sherwood's engine and aircraft is a true solid testament to this powerplant.

[@HobbitHomes263]

a nieghbor has a Zeneth 750 with a turbo Honda Goldwing engine. runs pretty well. a guy up in Missoula has Kitfox with a Mazda Wankel. that thing sounds very cool

[@lauriperamaki5354]

From 4WD to 0WD nice man 🥰

[@jiroyamamoto2878]

Ross, great video. Thank you for doing the video and for your great work. I love how low key you are with the LyCosaurs.

[@rv6ejguy]

The Lyco guys can't seem to contain themselves when they see anything not powered by them. The just have to comment negatively. I am already gathering info for Part 2 in the future. Glad you liked Part 1.

[@timduncan8450]

Thx Ross. I’m really enjoying learning about the soob

[@tlovsoe4211]

I am very happy to see the eg33 get some love I wonder if the ez36 crank would fit in the eg33 that would give just over 4 liters giving you some more torque while keeping the better eg33 pistons.

[@rv6ejguy]

The EG and EZ engines are completely different, no chance of transposing crankshafts.

[@philpotter6388]

Thanks, Ross! Informative, as always!

[@joebrown9621]

It's funny aviation guys say auto engines aren't suitable for aircraft but on the contrary most legacy aircraft engine wouldn't never last in an automobile these days

[@charosenz]

very impressive aircraft and informative video.

[@Feedback4Utoday]

a follow up with some detail would be fantastic. ie type of plane, type of engine, prop, the build, how certified etc

[@writerjmd]

Probably there are other videos that discuss this, but Subaru 2.5 engines from 99 to 2009 are famous for head gasket problems. The 95 2.2 engines are not afflicted with these problems. It's my understanding that the 2010 and later engines still have problems with head gaskets, but they leak to the outside instead of to the inside. I don't know if Subaru has ever totally solved this.

[@rv6ejguy]

Yes, this has been mentioned and very widespread as you mention. Something to watch out for but it usually gives lots of warning before it becomes serious. Good maintenance is key here.

[@John-rw9bv]

A lot of what people think is Subaru headgasket problems is actually a Subaru headgasket replacement problem - specifically not doing a proper job removing the old gasket, planning the deck, and re-torqueing everything down correctly again. Because the engine really comes in 4 pieces not 2 like a standard engine, this machine shop work is a lot more important than people think. The planning for example has to be done to both the engine and the head's surface, and with each bolted down to a jig to account for the warp caused by bolting it down. Very few machine shops (unless they're subaru specialists) have these jigs, so a lot of blocks are planned flat not under tension, resulting in the headgasket surface being uneven when everything is bolted down. The result - the headgasket leaks and everyone blames the gaskets. OEM built gaskets don't usually prematurely fail, they fail at known mileages, give or take 10,000km, i.e. like a clock.

[@writerjmd]

@@John-rw9bv Lots of people do engine work without the proper equipment

[@John-rw9bv]

@writerjmd yup, and i'm no exception. But when it comes to engine work, it's best to really treat the whole thing as a single unit that gets refreshed 100% every time you take it apart. Basically you can take any 1999/2009 EJ engine running in a car right now, dismantle at home for free, then build it following youtube guides with components ranging from $500 to $5000 in your garage, and easily achieve 300-800hp. The only thing you probably can't do is re-align/surface all the bored holes (crank, cylinder and cam shaft holes), and flatten the two engine/head surfaces, all under typical engine tension. A specialist machine shop with the jig has to do that, which is not something a regular engine needs to worry about to such a degree. In the Subaru the block bolts are very structurally significant, since they hold all 4 bits of metal together in 3 dimensions, so if they aren't all aligned and parallel to the expanding block, with the spinning shafts nicely perpendicular to those bolts, the bolts can be as strong as they like, the aluminium will warp and leak at the headgasket. Subaru also didn't balance the crank and cam shafts all that well, since the boxer design eliminates so much engine vibration as is, but with those precision ground and balanced the engine really becomes rock solid in terms of reliability. But yeah with those planning jigs so hard to come by, a lot of people have headgasket issues particularly at high horse power or long/hot duty cycles. So it's not really the headgaskets fault per se, although the non-turbo (carbon) gasket does only have a 80,000km lifespan while the turbo multi-layered steel version will last longer than the crank bearings and never fails unless the deck was mis-prepped.

[@Philscbx]

Very Impressive,, Great Color Scheme, and Huge thanks for all the Great Engine Install views. As A builder and Oshkosh camper since mid eighties, there were only about 3 auto engine builds where Subaru, Mazda, and a Chevy V8 was used. The Mazda Rotary was quite impressive, compact install in a Coors Experimental at the time, but it must be slim, with rarely seen models out there. I'd for sure use Subaru, but it was odd seeing the piston damage,, where I can only assume it was tortured to the max at full power turbo installs. Turbo' destruction after all the drag racing machine builds,, every time it's a destroyed engine above ten psi of boost. You should see what happens after 80lbs of boost is tested the first time,, where the slightest backfire going lean, rips the heads right off along with all the threads holding them on. Let alone the shortened connecting rods. Glad I stopped by,, Cheers

[@craigmonteforte1478]

good Video it’s interesting on the Contraversy between Automotive engines being used as Aircraft motors versus Aircraft motors i’m 60 years old and i’ve always been interested in Automobiles since Childhood along with being a Avid Reader my entire life as long as i can remember people have been Converting Automotive motors for Aircraft back to the Model A then later the VW Aircooled and Corvair a few years later the Mazda Weinkel or Rotary then of course the Famed Subaru Boxer motors IMO the Subaru really has been a great candidate for these Conversions as it’s a very successfull engine in almost everything it’s been used or modified /Adapted to be in they are known to put out great Horsepower numbers with decent fuelEconomy along with Reliability heck in the Automotive World they have become one of the most prefered motors for high end Sports Cars and Replicas most specifically Rear Engine and Mid Engine designed Vehicles , there is even a new generation testing them out in replacing Air Cooled Porsche 6 Cylinder Engines with the Subaru 4 cylinder and getting a way less expensive Powerplant that can come close to the level of Performance of the Porsche stock motor because of a weight reduction

[@bennyboyy7]

The facility they make them in was originally building aircraft engines for their planes in WW2. The engines are probably very similar to the engines They used back then. The 3.6 and actually all the 6 cylinders have had issues in land vehicles. If they would figure out the issues that could be a good engine option. Would be interesting to see them turbocharged

[@Mike-01234]

I once owned a Subaru impresa STI 2008 has 305 HP turbo charged. Very quick little car with the AWD never broke the tires lose at all. I eventually sold it after having multiple AC compressor and power steering pump failures. I bought a pickup truck. Later got the bug again to buy a turbo car we decided to spend less get the 2wd ford focus ST which 2L inline 4 turbo 258HP. I noticed the inline 4 cylinder in the focus vibrates much more then the boxer Subaru motor did. There is lot of aftermarket support for the boxer engine. It would be very interesting to have an aircraft with one. Makes sense a water cooled opposed engine to replace an Lycoming.

[@ckafam]

Thanks for the info and providing specifications about each aircraft. Could you please provide the Glasair empty weight as well? Happy New Year from Australia.

[@rv6ejguy]

I ask Russell for that.

[@rv6ejguy]

1364 pounds, about 50-75 pounds more than a similar IO-360 powered one.

[@ckafam]

@@rv6ejguy Thanks. Keep up the great videos.👍

[@rv6ejguy]

Good gearboxes are hard to get now unfortunately as the supply has mostly dried up on 2 of the popular ones- Marcotte and SPG.

[@_Red_Speed3]

having worked on the fa20 and ej series engines i would be worried about oil pressure and them head gaskets

[@creativityworld6781]

Very intresting as an ex-Subaru legacy driver I really trust subaru engines and always believe that they fit for aircrafts and here the evidence. Where to buy the gearbox?

[@VenturiLife]

Another good swap is a H-6 3.0L from the Liberty / Outback with a chain drive. Standard Subaru engines of EJ series and some others had issues with the original headgaskets due to coating and would fail over time, so worth updating to the newer headgaskets for an EJ255 or EJ257 if you're considering that, or install copper fire-rings and do away with headgasket completely. Cylinder 4 may not get adequate liquid cooling in some engines under heavy load, and there is a mod for that to redirect coolant to get more dwell time near that cylinder. Forged pistons are probably best in this application.

[@John-rw9bv]

The newer gaskets still have the same problem - it's a planned obsolescence thing by Subaru. The only permanent fix is to use the multi-layered-steel/MLS headgaskets, which came on all the turbo engines. It's only the NA headgaskets that fail. I should also say, the plastic headgaskets on eBay, sometimes called "composite" but they really mean high-tech plastic, are also better than the OEM Subaru NA "carbon" headgaskets, and they cost around $80 FOR A PAIR. For up to 300hp these gaskets are great and will last years. In fairness in a plane i'd still buy the MLS gaskets but in principle (and with a bit of testing at high rpm/load for a long time) i'd be OK flying in a plane with plastic gaskets haha

[@2drpeppersplz]

@@John-rw9bv what is the point of this comment? he already mentioned to use the turbo gaskets lol

[@creativityworld6781]

Is it ok to install a chain or belt instead of the gears to drive the prop?

[@rv6ejguy]

Chains are not too popular but lots of people have used belts.

[@scottpeters9911]

Only my opinion, having owned a beater Subaru Legacy for many years I finally had to retire the car after 283,663 miles. Damn good car/ engine despite being abused by the former owners & myself. I knew going in to the deal that it had seen it’s better days. Still impressive. I have an A&P & take some credit for understanding mechanical systems & engines, having said all that to say this, whichever way you go there will be obstacles & limitations on any power plant/airframe choice you make. Be sure to take a long look/ think on the ground before you attempt to get airborne. The skies are an unforgiving of mistakes type of environment. Be safe! Be sure! & Be ever watchful of cutting costs/corners, trying to save a buck! Good luck!

[@destroytheilluminati770]

i'm part of the avid flyer group and we just had a group member have a catastrophic engine failure, (subaru) he damaged his aircraft trying to land in deep snow, He hasnt had a chance to pull the motor to examine what happened. In my opinion the subaru engine is just too heavy for avid airframes unless you have the stretched version or else you would have to add a ton of weight in back to balance it

[@rv6ejguy]

Many types of Subes flying. The EA81 is around 145 pounds for the long block. I know of many of those flying. One of my customers with 700 hours on it now. Engine failures are usually caused by poor assembly if they have oil and coolant in them. Nothing wrong with the core Subaru engine as I illustrate here. We've sold over 500 EFI systems for Subaru aircraft worldwide over 26 years.

[@Intrepid175a]

Do you know if they've done any work with the newer FB serios engines? FB25, etc? Just curious.

[@rv6ejguy]

I haven't heard of any flying yet.

[@bobrobi4328]

What are you guys doing for redundant ignition

[@rv6ejguy]

With one plug per cylinder and coil packs or COP, not so easy to do. The electronics are more reliable than the engine. Most of us fly with single ignition. Not aware of any problems with that on any of these planes featured here.

[@jjohnston94]

I have a Subaru powered Subaru, and the way it started falling apart at 128,000 miles, I wouldn't trust one in an airplane.

[@JP-hr3xq]

I obviously believe you, but subarus tend to see 200k miles with no issues. Except if you had the old EJ251 engine with the graphite head gaskets.

[@kowkunt8710]

Well done !

[@benpercival4884]

I am planning doing something similar with the RV 14A and the new FA24 from the Subaru Ascent. Great vid! question though, how did they safety exceed Vne with the EJ257? Experience?

[@rv6ejguy]

Cool. RVs exceed Vne all the time at Reno. Lots of safety factor built in. Do at your own risk of course.

[@Triple_J.1]

I'm not sure why the Subaru engines became popular aero engine conversions. Other than the fact they are horizontally opposed 4cyl, and therefore somewhat more familiar to pilots, and they fit into standard 1960s style engine cowls found on most GA aircraft. Auto engine conversions do have some issues. The fundamental problem is that they are designed for much lower duty cycles of 10-30hp. The physical issue is the main bearing sizes, they have very small diameters to handle the high rpm redline, and they are short in length to make the engine compact to fit in a front drive or awd car. This means the average bearing pressure is going to be substantially higher than an aero engine, because a given amount of force is applied to a smaller bearing area. Cheap automotive aluminized bearings will probably fatigue the bearing surface, crack and disintegrate quickly. This is common among being who modify and drag race cars. The solution is high quality bearings with different metallurgy that is designed for higher stress and heat over time. And used in conjunction with oil which can handle the increased pressure such as class V ester synthetics or even diesel oil. And this bearing size issue is fine for cars because the fact they are not designed to run at maximum power or even at a constant high rpm for hours and days and weeks on end. Those that do run hard (race/rally cars) are highly modified with better bearings and oil, or have unusually good maintenance and regular overhauls. That being said, for most Experimental aircraft the builder typically spends twice as much time building as they will ever attain flying their airplane. So the engines only have to last 500-1000hrs for many people. Lycoming engines often go 2500-2700hrs if built well and flown often. Aerobatic use brings this down to around 600-1200hrs, or maybe 200hr for the airshow circuit. But there isn't a single auto conversion that would hold up to world level aerobatic abuse. Lycoming type engines have a statistical in flight total engine failure approximately once every 3,800hrs. Auto conversions are going to be substantially lower than this. Therefore, one should expect an increased -probability- (talking statistical chance) of engine out landing in the life of their automotive converted aircraft. And knowing that a probability of a forced landing is relatively higher, it would be prudent to only install auto conversions in airplanes that land relatively slow and can handle off-airport landings. Such as most Vans RVs or a Bearhawk or similar. And then Practice and Drill repetitions of finding fields and landing on them. (Bush guys do this a lot, RV guys not so much). - I would personally not put an automotive conversion in a heavy glassair III if its intended purpose is long cross countries or actual IMC. Experimental race planes, engineered, built and maintained by a professional engineer, different story. Most people are not that guy. And most people don't know they need to call King Bearings with a detailed specification for a custom order long before they send their block to the machinist or smear a single blob of assembly lube on it. Talking to people, less than 1 in 1,000 people even consider the bearings before they go out and buy the latest greatest connecting rods for their motor build. (Hint: rods don't break under normal non-pre-ignition cylinder pressures, its far less force than the centrifugal forces found at high rpm. Rods don't usually need upgraded unless your increasing rpms substantially).

[@rv6ejguy]

Where are you getting your information that auto engines are only designed to sustain 10-30hp from? Modern auto engines are validated to much higher criteria than aero engines. 200 to 300 hours at full power are common tests and auto engines are developing 3-5 times the specific output of a typical Lycoming. Marine versions of auto engines sustain similar power levels to aviation and last just fine. You seem to have missed the part on the EG33 at the end. This engine has trounced all the Lyconental powered entries in class and even the class above in multiple SARL cross country races. WOT 5200 rpm. No bearing or other mechanical issues. Over 850 hours on it now. Bearing loads are similar. Auto engines use much lighter reciprocating assemblies having far less inertia. Subarus are short stroke designs which reduces pistons speeds- the main criteria for lower end stress. Subarus have 2 main bearings for each crank throw, unlike Lyconentals. These engines aren't showing any bearing distress or failure as you postulate, even using factory bearings. In the second installment (video #105), we see one example having over 2300 flight hours on it. Still working fine. I never said that Subarus were for everyone. Just showing that they are working well for many folks.

[@John-rw9bv]

This may shock you, but Subaru bearings are easily replaced and cost around $200 for a full set of main and connecting rod "race" bearings. Also what you said about most people not considering bearings isn't true, most people in the Subaru community actually overdo it on the bearings, having them replaced every time they breakdown the short block, because why not it's only $200 for some new bearings. You gotta remember, most people building Subaru engines these days are looking to get 600hp minimum, and daily drive it. That's 4x the power the block was designed for, and people daily drive these engines for years without any maintenance other than fresh oil.

[@chippyjohn1]

With regards to bearing diameters, actually a smaller bearing can handle the same amount of power at high rpm as a larger diameter bearing 'can' at lower rpm (put simply). (remember power is torque over time), Small bearings are not good for low speed torque, but a designed amount of talk at high speed 'power' they are very capable of. The circumference of the bearing and viscousity of the oil and rpm allow a small bearing to carry load at higher rpm. The separation of bearing surfaces is actually due to speed, not oil pressure. The bearing surfaces hydro-plane over one another just like a planing hull on a boat or a tyre driving over water. the faster you drive into water the more the vehicle hydro planes, this is all dependent on how wide and how much load the vehicle has on the tyres. if the bearing is too large in diameter, it causes a lot of drag and shearing of the oil which causes heat and inefficiency. Bearings are also not made from aluminium, they are steel with multiple layers even from factory, mostly babbit and copper. The oils are also mostly class IV not V. PAO and PAN are mostly class IV, and they can be readily purchased off the shelf as that is what I use for my small bearing high rpm automotive engine. I did some technical training at bosch in their automotive department and for their engine testing they poor sand/dirt into the engine, run it well beyond oil change interval, carry out repeated full throttle cold start settings, over heat engines, introduce vacuum leaks, misfires, place the engine on a vibrating table while running, poor water into oil, you name it, it is very brutal. If anything automotive engines are tested much more thoroughly than aircraft engines, however I do not agree that all automotive engines are suitable for aircraft. These myths about automotive engines is so frustrating.

[@chippyjohn1]

I don't think you understand the difference between boundary and hydrodynamic lubrication works. Secondly how torque, rpm and power works.

[@AleksandrPodyachev]

Would a Subaru engine run on standard 100LL avigas?

[@rv6ejguy]

The valves and seats seem to degrade pretty fast using 100LL avgas.

[@sleepers1034]

I love my ej257.

[@AnthonyPuca]

Very interested in a non-GA engine for my RV-10 project. Interested in how feasible this would be and what is the estimated cost of the Subaru engine with the twin turbos you showed in the end? What’s the weight on that too?

[@rv6ejguy]

You'd have to dig up the engine which are a bit rare and have the skills to rebuild it, source the redrive, turbos, custom engine mount, prop etc. Really requires an engineer or gearhead to make it work reliably. Wouldn't be cheap to hire all that done.

[@NicksStuff]

Where are the gearboxes from?

[@rv6ejguy]

A variety here, Marcotte, Eggenfellner, NSI, SPG. Some no longer in production. The SPG is available from Air Trikes in Canada.

[@NicksStuff]

@@rv6ejguy Thanks

[@ben3989]

So are these gear reduced gear boxes?

[@rv6ejguy]

Yes, we need to reduce the prop speed about in half from crankshaft speed.

[@peterhille5221]

What is the viability of using wing leading edge skin cooling for the engine and oil cooling in order to reduce cooling drag?

[@rv6ejguy]

Not enough surface area to do the job and hard to implement into the structure, probably quite a bit heavier than a traditional rad.

[@Dave-so7sf]

I’ve owned a few WRXs and a few STIs I would never fly in something with a Subaru motor. Lots of crank bearing failures and ringland failures . I honestly question the design of the horizontally opposed engine. Rings are not going to wear evenly.

[@rv6ejguy]

One guy in my videos has over 3500 flight hours behind EJs. No failures. Ring land failures indicate detonation. That's not the engine's fault- too much boost, too much timing, too lean, not enough octane are the usual causes. Rings mainly wear from gas loading and we don't see uneven wear on Porsche, Continental, Lycoming, Corvair or Subaru engines, even with high time. Not sure where you are getting this idea from.

[@Dave-so7sf]

@@rv6ejguy If the ringland failures were due to detonation why did Subaru recall several engines for defective ringlands? Same thing goes for the crank bearings those were recalled too. I had a crank bearing failure at 18k miles with a bone stock EJ257. I’ve seen several other failures too throughout Subaru groups I have spoken with. You’re going to be flying one day at that engine is going to go pop. You’ll be saying, damn that guy from the internet was right.

[@rv6ejguy]

The ring lands were not defective. Subaru issued a Stop Sell order in MY2009 STis after multiple engine failures caused by improper ECU calibration and subsequent detonation. Detonation is the #1 cause of ring land failures. I've been building turbo engines for 40 years. Seen lots of cast pistons broken from that. Subaru also had a number of oil pump pickup failures resulting in destroyed bottom ends around the same time. The smart engine builder knows about these things and takes steps so they don't cause failures. Lots of "tuned" STis fail because the tuner doesn't know what they are doing. This is why OEMs don't warranty most modified engines. In aircraft, we don't push boost anywhere close to even the OEM factory limits. Most are running less than 7 psi for takeoff and maybe 5 psi in cruise at most. All makes of engines have their issues.@@Dave-so7sf

[@tlovsoe4211]

@@rv6ejguy The weak ring gland myth is not just because bad tuners it is also a lack of knowledge on the part of the owner or engine builder running too much power and therefore heat where the rings cant expand and close the gap anymore creating a large force on the cylinder walls and the ring glands. either not enough ring gap or tuner lets it run too lean causing heat...

[@rv6ejguy]

@@tlovsoe4211 All cast pistons have relatively weak ring lands and those are almost always the first things to fail if there is any detonation.

[@maxtuner5762]

The fact that he used the EJ22 instead of the EZ30 is incredible

[@maxtuner5762]

@Rogelio Alvaro you've got my attention

[@John-rw9bv]

The EZ30 isn't as strong as the EJ22, the 22 has thicker walls and is a bigger engine in general. Well, per cylinder. The EZ has 6 pistons after all. The EG33 is an EJ22 with 2 extra pistons, i.e. the same thick walls, but it's a lot bigger than the EZ. The EJ20 technically has the thickest walls second only to the diesel EE20, but as any of these engines bored and lined with a high tensile alloy double or triples the maximum peak pressure, it's really a moot point. The strongest Subaru engine is the one that was lined with anything other than aluminium, and then the deck closed up anyway you like. I guess drilling out the main bolts for a thicker diameter rod/stud is the third important strength upgrade. After all that and some new rods/pistons they'll make 600hp all day long.

[@shoominati23]

That's an option I never thought of for an aircraft to be honest.. Did you know that Toyota was planning to develop an Aero version of the 1-UZFE V8 automobile engine in the early 90s, but ran into financial problems during the Japanese recession of the time and abandoned the project in cost overruns and time constraints? Similarly, the firm Orenda (I 'm not sure if they were still in Canadian hands at that time) was trying to get the 427 cubic inch Chevrolet ZL1 Aluminium V8 certified, due to it's low weight and great power potential per cubic inch, but again ran way over time (certification didn't even happen until the late 90s for something that started right at the beginning of the 70s) and FAA wanted them to be TBO'd at less than 1500hrs and inspections at 1000 due to being an unproven technology.. So, we're back to the good old Lyco's and Contis - The BEST technology that the 1930's can bring! Bring my Auburn to the flightline post haste! They are playing a relay of the Vienna pops at 9 on the wireless that I just cannot miss!!

[@artilleryisbetter]

Nice! Maybe my old EJ can be donated in an aircraft

[@tyeman3039]

Any word on these converted LS3’s?

[@rv6ejguy]

We have 3 customers with LS engines in aircraft, 2 flying. Working well so far. Look up Moose Mods.

[@doneB830]

Liked and subscribed thanks

[@mwosekisaila]

What kind of fuel does it use

[@rv6ejguy]

These engines are burning either 100LL avgas or 91 octane mogas in most cases.

[@lawrencefox563]

Understand Subaru has horizontally opposed layout but any non timing belt Japanese car engine direct injection,with or without boost of course limiting altitude but who,s bringing o2 anyway.

[@iforce2d]

I'm day-dreaming about how cool these planes would look with the gear up.... mmmmm....

[@yukon4511]

It's been done with an RV-4. Not a significant performance improvement.

[@diogo9113]

Where can I found this gearbox marcoto 300?

[@rv6ejguy]

Very difficult to get now as the designer is semi-retired. Not sure how much support there would be in the future. For under 160hp, you may try the SPG 3 or SPG 4 from Air Trikes in Canada. They have many flying and are well supported.

[@ronaldscott6169]

Has has anybody tried a V6 Honda motor

[@rv6ejguy]

Yup, Titan Aircraft used them for years in their T51 kits.

[@briananthony4044]

In a car it is operated between 2000 and 3000 rpm most of their life, in a plane cruising at 4500 rpm must add a lot of wear and tear.

[@rv6ejguy]

They seem to last fine by aviation engine standards which is why I put in the Glastar experience which has pretty high time.

[@chippyjohn1]

The automotive markets biggest concern is fuel economy. For an average car (Subaru for example), you only need 30-40KW to drive on the highway. It would be inefficient and needless to run an engine at high RPM. Also most wear is from start up and cold running, An engine that Runs long hours but at operating temperature will last longer than one that starts and stops regularly. Piston speed and engine temperature are more important. Engine temperature being largely overlooked by the aircraft industry and not a factor for a car running at 10% power for the majority.

[@John-rw9bv]

​@@chippyjohn1 Actually the SBFC of the EJ22 is around 3000-3500rpm, high load, so you could argue running it at 2000rpm is inefficient and results in overall more heat for the same work done :P Regardless, Subaru's biggest weak point - the open deck design (bubbles in the engine block for unnecessarily large amounts of coolant to flow around the cylinders) makes it one of the best cooled engines out there, which is why they can have such high mileage if properly maintained, despite being cast aluminium. TLDR cooling isn't the problem with these engines. If properly machined, very little goes wrong with these engines at all, usually its the gearbox or a bearing/etc, which is basically an act of god

[@chippyjohn1]

@@John-rw9bv BSFC changes at part throttle compared to WOT. Open deck design is not a weakness, it is a strength. Open deck allows cylinders to expand in a uniform amount, keeping them round. Important for a flat engine to reduce oil consumption. Also, instead of using cast liners you can use steel alloy allowing you to increase power substantially and also use sealing rings (fire rings) and you have no head gasket issue. If a cooling system is designed to run at sufficient pressure, there will be no bubbles or cavitation. Little going wrong on an engine that is babied with a squirt of power now and then is very different to an engine is run at full power continuously.

[@jaybee3165]

a very smooth, reliable engine- no doubt. but fully dressed in the plane? 326Lbs, WITHOUT turbo. 160hp. an aeromomentum AM15t WITH turbo? 215Lbs: flight ready... that's the same hp- but with the turbo, over 100 lbs. lighter, and is crate ready for install for $18,000. fully dressed subaru turbo engine weighs the same as the newly released deltahawk turbo / supercharged 2 stroke aircraft engine, which has an output of 180hp- and as much torque as a continental io550... .even if it is $60k.

[@rv6ejguy]

I don't see your point. Most of these conversions shown were done 1 to 2 decades ago, long before the AM engines were available. They all cost a fraction of $18K and they are proven with tens of thousands of hours on them collectively- something that the AM15T doesn't have. No private owners have flown a DH in a Homebuilt yet and they'll be a lot more than $60K. Finally, torque isn't the the metric of importance for aircraft motivation, HP is, and the DH in no way would replace a Conti IO-550 in that department, being 130hp short.

[@kunstmol]

really?? the slow walk toward the camera?

[@chippyjohn1]

11:25 Welded gears, far out. It look slike the weld is just sitting on the hub splines rather than penetrated. I wouldn't purchase anything from that company. You say he also disconnected the variable valve timing, well in his more recent videos he says how good it is and that's what pilots should want. You should make a video just on the issues of the Eggenfelner engines. I think it should be well documented, even beyond what it is already in forums. It is peoples lives and money at stake.

[@rv6ejguy]

The Eggenfellner Subaru story ended about 15 years ago. Not too many flying today and all the people who are, are well aware of the many sketchy things on these conversions.

[@chippyjohn1]

@@rv6ejguy He is still doing the same dodgy work on his new engines, nothing has changed. Jan just deletes your comment if it doesn't praise his work.

[@rv6ejguy]

@@chippyjohn1 Yup, know all that. I don't have an interest in doing a video on Jan and his products. I'll leave that for someone else.

[@briantii]

I’m not seeing 444 hours in 15+ years as being particularly impressive. Gearbox issues and removing it frequently for maintenance, head gaskets, etc all before 700 hours? Not exactly impressive there either. Our Continental certified engine some years runs 350-400 hours in a single year. Sitting at 1200 hours total time now on it and still going great. Prop has never been off. All but one of the fine wire plugs are original. It’s had standard magneto maintenance every 400 - 500 hours and a valve cover gasket replaced. I struggle to see why a Subaru engine would be attractive or worth the hassles described here. Seems like a lot of headaches and could likely accomplish more by modernization of an aircraft engine.

[@rv6ejguy]

You could watch the later video featuring 4 more Subes, one with 2300 hours on it now. Lower cost is the big attraction. I tried to show the problems as well as the successes.

[@John-rw9bv]

The price is probably the main benefit that wasn't really raised here. Even with those hassles, it's a substantially cheaper engine to run and maintain, particularly if you have the same engine in your car/motorbike, know how it works, can do the basic stuff yourself. If the engine blew up but all the accessories could be salvaged, a replacement engine with freshly machined internals is less than 1/5th of the lycoming. Some people find the certification process is worth the money for the peace of mind, others get peace of mind by building the engine themselves, and with the Subaru that's very doable in an afternoon.

[@briantii]

@@John-rw9bv In the experimental world you can still rebuild an aircraft engine yourself, though yes the parts do cost more. For the experimental non-certified ones Lycoming and Continental do charge less as I recall. I suspect the cost savings aren’t that great when everything is taken into consideration.

[@briantii]

@@rv6ejguy I’ll have to check those out. Thanks for the reply and sorry I didn’t see it sooner.

[@yukon4511]

Great video Ross. You left out the important numbers though. 10,800 Lycoming RV's, maybe 20 Subes. It's not for nothing Ross!

[@rv6ejguy]

Thanks. As I stated in my other comments, this video is about Subarus not Lycomings. If you enjoy flying your Lycoming, continue... Subarus will never replace Lycomings in most RVs. I think everyone already knows that.

[@yukon4511]

@@rv6ejguy Lots of noobs here Ross. They need the numbers before deciding on an engine.

[@rv6ejguy]

@@yukon4511 Not to worry as there are no Subaru FWF kits available any more and 99.5% of RV builders will install a Lyc. The other .5% want something different.

[@yukon4511]

@@rv6ejguy Yes Ross, I understand "different". It's when auto engines are portrayed as "superior", I get nervous. Higher weight and higher fuel consumption are factors which new builders need to be made aware of.

[@rv6ejguy]

@@yukon4511 The fuel consumption is pretty similar on Andy's plane to a Lyc at that speed. The speed of Russell's Glasair is superior to any other 200 cubic inch Lyconental powered airplane of similar size that I know of. The speed of Shane's RV-7 is superior to any atmo Lyc 360 RV-7 I am aware of. I listed the weights on purpose so viewers would see that, just as I showed some of the problems encountered with these packages. Not sugar coating anything here. You don't care for auto engines in aircraft, I know that from years of your comments on the subject and I get it you'd never install one in your airplane. Read you 5 by 5. That's fine, fly your Lycoming... Jeez Can't you just enjoy the video like most folks here? I'm not telling people to ash can their Lyc and put in a Sube.

[@sacemurakami7929]

But that head gasket.

[@ismailuludag9280]

Sti 😊 ❤

[@veritasdesigns5067]

Apparently not they stop making them in 2019 and it’s 2021

[@ben3989]

No mention on the Natural Light beer can installed in Russell’s plane.

[@ORMA1]

Great engine!

[@sirnewton6874]

I want to meet you. Can you make this happen.

[@rv6ejguy]

We're based out of Springbank/ Calgary. I'll be uploading another Subaru aircraft video soon if you liked this one.

[@paulbickley658]

Refresh my memory but I have learned that those Subaru motors aren't reliable in cars, how did you get approval from the FAA for that..

[@rv6ejguy]

You can use any engine you want in Experimental aircraft in the US or Canada. Watch the 2nd video with 4 more Sube powered aircraft- one with 2300+ hours on it.

[@paulbickley658]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHu2ind4n9B9hLM

[@rv6ejguy]

@@paulbickley658 Yes, if you don't change the oil or let it run low, you'll have issues with many engines. Aircraft engines are usually well maintained as your life depends on it. The HG issue on open deck EJ25s is well known. Not usually catastrophic, lots of warning before they go and Subaru has a modern HG to fix the issue.

[@thevictim2072]

Who told you that Subaru engines are not reliable?

[@gtgodbear6320]

I wouldn't put my life in the hands of a Subaru boxer engine. If everything's not perfect it will end in catastrophe. The engine that is

[@tztz1949]

Short answer. Just get a lycoming.

[@rv6ejguy]

You might have missed the part where Sherwood trounced the Lycomings having more than double the displacement, in multiple SARL races.

[@judgedredd8876]

I wouldn't drive a Subaru flat-4, too many sudden failures both in petrol and diesel versions. Not exactly aviation material!

[@wallywally8282]

Too heavy, too complex and too many hassles selling, all in all too many “too’s”! There’s many reasons why very few use oddball engines compared to the proper A/C engines.

[@r8drvr819]

Sorry, but I wouldn't want a Subaru powered car!!

[@creightonking8436]

In the video you say “no problems” a bunch of times and then say they replaced gear boxes and fly wheels and have to pull the prop off and gear box apart every 25 hours.. sound like a crap ton of problems. You must be selling parts for these..

[@rv6ejguy]

Early Egg PSRUs had multiple problems due to poor design with most being retired long ago and the Gen 3 boxes still have some known issues which require frequent inspections to be safe. The usual interval is 100 hours or at annual. Inspections hopefully keep you safe from a catastrophic failure and are part of owning any airplane. My Marcotte PSRU has never been apart in 18 years. The SPG-3/4 boxes have been proven robust as well.

[@chippyjohn1]

I considered the Subaru engine for my project, but found it was not suitable. So many aspects to consider with an engine. What I do know is you should not tell someone something is suitable without testing and knowing it yourself. The person in question here is doing the same with another product and have little knowledge of the product but are telling people it is good. They are just trying to make money, if it was a bar of soap, who cares, but an aircraft engine should be KNOWN to be appropriate. I find it strange that someone can go bankrupt and then start a new business the next year, hmm. I have no personal experience with this company but noticed much of what they say is inconsistent and false. I had a sense that he was being dishonest, then I found out the history and other peoples experiences which really made my eyes open. I grew up with two narcissists, I have become very attune to dishonesty and can detect it in others. With some modifications almost any engine can be suitable for a purpose in aircraft, however I think the reputation of these engines have been tarnished by the seller, and the new company may do the same. Nice video though, happy new year.

[@rv6ejguy]

This video discusses Subaru engines in general not Eggenfellner specifically. A whole video could be done on that debacle. I merely present what several builders have accomplished using Subaru power in real life. The engines stand on their own merit. There is nothing special about Subarus, they are an average engine which are fairly light and fit the cowlings of many aircraft with minimal modifications- hence their popularity.

[@chippyjohn1]

@@rv6ejguy I liked the open deck aspect of the subaru engine and coupled with a fire ring it would have been better than a head gasket. You need to modify all engines to make them suitable. I am using a Suzuki M series engine, best design out their.

[@rv6ejguy]

@@chippyjohn1 I've been building and turbocharging engines professionally for over 40 years. Never O-ringed one of them including many road racing engines. At the boost you run in aircraft, you don't need it at all. My EJ22T has closed deck heads- purposely chosen in this case as they don't have HG issues like most other Subaru open deck engines. Open deck designs are generally inferior for sealing at high boost.

[@chippyjohn1]

@@rv6ejguy Not O-ring, but fire ring. The Suzuki engine I use is open deck and non siamese, great for cooling but not the most rigid, so I use a fire ring for rigidity, sealing and cooling. Having a little copper ring right in the quench zone is great for preventing detonation and pre ignition. Not needed at lower power levels, but if used it makes an engine a lot stronger. It also allows me to run lean, while recovering wasted heat in the airframe. Although 1 bar of boost is not high, in the event of a cylinder drop the engine is able to run much higher boost. My biggest fear is flying over a river of crocs and having to ring the dinner bell, so i take safety seriously.

[@richardwaugh2049]

Phoney intro

[@skalover98]

Subaru doesn't make good car engines, how can they be good aircraft engines? The aftermarket makes Subaru engines good.

[@rv6ejguy]

10 Subaru powered aircraft in 2 videos with stock or nearly stock internals would seem to say otherwise, maybe around 7000+ flight hours collectively.

[@markspc1]

Boring.