Magni M22, MTO Sport or ELA Turbo.

Subaru’s link to aircraft engines is pretty nebulous.

When Subaru undertook a light aircraft resembling a low wing Piper, they used a Lycoming.
 

Attachments

  • 300px-Fuji_FA-200-180.JPG
    300px-Fuji_FA-200-180.JPG
    12.8 KB · Views: 0
It’s ludicrous to install a $30,000 engine on what amounts to nothing more than an aerial dirt bike/jet ski.

Vance, I'm sure Chuck had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek with that silly statement. After all, it obviously depends on what you do with it :)
Not all gyro flying is done around the cabbage patch. Fly across a couple of thousand miles of remote African bushveld (like many gyros do in this part of the world) and the peace of mind offered by a $30,000 reliable, 4-stroke engine starts becoming worth every dime!

3224_86130396058_733366058_2252427_1176709_n.jpg
.
 
Several mentally deranged Englishmen have crossed the North Atlantic in rowboats.

Doesn’t mean it’s a smart move or a viable means of transportation no matter how reliable the oars may be.
 
Sport Touring across the Sky.

Sport Touring across the Sky.

Chuck’s humor often goes right over my head.

He has taken the aerial dirt bike position before.

I do feel like the Predator is a motorcycle in the sky. More of a sport touring bike than a dirt bike.

When I am wandering around the coastal hills there are lots of places to land but retrieving the aircraft might be problematic.

At those times I am grateful to have an engine that is designed for sustained high output even if it is not a $30,000 engine.

I have had remarkable little trouble with the Predator and generally only perform routine maintenance. I hope that Mariah Gale will be as trouble free.

Building a one off gyroplane is probably just as expensive as a store bought gyroplane but I find a certain satisfaction in bringing her to life. I expect she will be a little quirky.

I feel that a Rotax powered gyroplane is more like a BMW motorcycle. Well designed and very capable of making the miles disappear beneath her rotor with little worry about when she might stop.

The Predator is more like a custom built Harley Davidson with its large displacement oil leaking antique design Lycoming engine. I love the connection I experience as the entire feel of the aircraft changes with power or altitude changes. I can feel her working up the hills and loafing down the hills. I always give her a little pat when we arrive at our intended destination at close to our ETA.

I want to design and build my own sport touring motorcycle in the sky and that is why I don’t just buy something and save a lot of work. I have a picture in my head and it does not look like any of the store bought gyroplanes.

I love our aviation adventure.

As I was typing I see that Chuck has posted again. In my experience the English understand it well.

I didn’t understand it either until I finished the Isle of Mann Classic on my Harley Davidson. The Harley Davidson was probably not well suited to the task but there was a joy in pressing on regardless. I qualified on a new friends street Honda when the motorcycle didn’t arrive on time. I finished 38th out of 120 starters, risked my life, caught fire, spent almost as much money as I was paid and worked as hard as I have ever worked with several friends. In short it was a great adventure and I pressed on regardless.

Thank you, Vance
 
Last edited:
Several mentally deranged Englishmen have crossed the North Atlantic in rowboats. Doesn’t mean it’s a smart move or a viable means of transportation no matter how reliable the oars may be.

The same "deranged" comments could of course be made about two American brothers who, in 1903 decided that heavier-than-air human flight was possible. Or a few other Americans who that thought that taking a few small steps in lunar dust for a couple of hours in 1969 was worth the almost 830,000 n mile round trip. :)
 
Last edited:
I love the connection I experience as the entire feel of the aircraft changes with power or altitude changes. I can feel her working up the hills and loafing down the hills. I always give her a little pat when we arrive at our intended destination at close to our ETA.
Vance, I think you have summed up absolutely perfectly the joy of flying :plane:
 
Well Mike convinced me, I'll stay with suby's.

Graeme.

There was some doubt in your mind before his reasoned dispassionate epistle? (tounge in cheek)

I think not. You have a preference that works for you, and you are sticking to it. OK, no problem here.

There are reasons why auto conversions have not been trouble free in aircraft applications. Mentioning that those experiences exist to someone thinking about which of the many choices to make does not constitute blasphemy, except to those overcome by "TB".

Those afflicted with TB (True Believers), tend to be motivated more by emotion than reason, and thus make fools of themselves in defense of ideas that don't need or warrant such passionate defense.

Just My opinion.
 
Last edited:
...and that was one more vital step of an exponential growth that has extended mankind's reach beyond our galaxy.
 
Cierva paved the way for the helicopter with his invention of the Autogiro but his dream ended up in the dustbin of history.

All attempts since WWII to revive the concept of the gyroplane as a useful vehicle have failed; the A&S 18A, the Canadian Avian, the McCullough J-2 and efforts by Groen and Carter. A solution looking for a problem that consumed a ton of money.

A gyro doesn’t do anything that a J-3 Cub or Aeronca Champ can’t do as well or better on 65 HP. When these light airplanes go 75-mph, their wings are also going at the same speed, not 300-400 mph. Therein lies the problem.

All gyroplanes being flown today are derivatives of Bensen designs; 2-blade teetering rotors, tilt head cyclic control with offset gimbal pivots for stabilizing feedback. Most use the same double row ball bearing in the rotorhead as Bensen used. Even down to the 2½-inch wide hub bar.

There’s not a thing wrong with the gyroplane as a toy for hobbyists and like many other hobbies, it’s up to the participant to spend whatever amount of money he chooses and can afford.
 
Ask SportCopter about their experience with Subaru's and why they switched to Lycoming.

Mark

I was going to steer clear of this thread, but since you asked:

Suburu: Broken valves,computer problems, lack of power/weight (160hp), Power exists at high RPM...bad for an engine designed for low rpm. Redrive is too heavy. Multiple systems(water,oil,fuel,ECU,etc) no redundant ignition, NOT AIRCRAFT.etc

Lycoming: Dyno proven 225hp, 100lbs lighter than sub, reliable, no redrive, low rpm, easy var.prop, any A&P can work on it, designed for the task,etc


I could make more comparisons, but the bottom line is that for about the same price, we get more power, less weight, better reliablilty, and our customers like the fact that were using AIRCRAFT engines and parts.

I have heard more than once "OH, your using real aircraft engines?!?!"

Just because you CAN use a motorcycle engine or car engine, doesn't mean you HAVE too or NEED too.

Also, I'm sure the re-sale value would be better with aircraft engines.

Just a note, we still have 2 Suburu engines that we run, but when they are due for annuals, they will be ditched for AIRCRAFT engines.

Jon

I've used my knife as a screwdriver, but I would rather use my screwdriver.
 
Last edited:
defense of ideas that don't need or warrant such passionate defense.

...and that was one more vital step of an exponential growth that has extended mankind's reach beyond our galaxy.

One can passionately exclaim and expound on the earth being flat till the cows come home, but it hardly gets us beyond our own prejudice's, much less beyond the galaxy.

Conversely, one can have a good point, but by their insulting personal attacks and over zealous bold faced pontification so damage their credibility as to do disservice to the very point of view they seek to defend.
 
Cierva paved the way for the helicopter with his invention of the Autogiro but his dream ended up in the dustbin of history.

All attempts since WWII to revive the concept of the gyroplane as a useful vehicle have failed; the A&S 18A, the Canadian Avian, the McCullough J-2 and efforts by Groen and Carter. A solution looking for a problem that consumed a ton of money.

A gyro doesn’t do anything that a J-3 Cub or Aeronca Champ can’t do as well or better on 65 HP. When these light airplanes go 75-mph, their wings are also going at the same speed, not 300-400 mph. Therein lies the problem.

All gyroplanes being flown today are derivatives of Bensen designs; 2-blade teetering rotors, tilt head cyclic control with offset gimbal pivots for stabilizing feedback. Most use the same double row ball bearing in the rotorhead as Bensen used. Even down to the 2½-inch wide hub bar.

There’s not a thing wrong with the gyroplane as a toy for hobbyists and like many other hobbies, it’s up to the participant to spend whatever amount of money he chooses and can afford.

Chuck, you are right. But the history of the autogyro was not the original question. To your factual point, I ask:

Is reliability any less important if I am in my toy having fun over less than perfect terrain, than if I did it for pay?

If I am going to take my children and grandchildren up with me to bore holes in the sky, I want a reliable aircraft with a reliable engine. Period.

(NOT that a Subaru perfectly set up and maintained can not be shown to have not failed a particular user.) No doubt, Subaru's have a better track record than some other auto conversions. They also have a history of the same typical auto conversion problems.

My intended point was that when a person is making a choice and asks about engine pluses and minuses, the history of auto conversions in aircraft is relevant for consideration. That's all.
 
After some 30 Mac attacks during my early gyro days, I developed an automatic reflex to avoid flight over areas where a safe landing was impossible. By safe, I mean without injury to myself, not necessarily without damage to the gyro.

We eventually solved most of the Mac reliability problems but it was still a clay pigeon with a crankshaft like a bent coat hanger.

Even if I had a Rotax 912, I would still avoid flight over areas that required landing in tall timber or in deep water offshore.

I’ve had one auto engine powered gyro, a VW that performed well but was far too heavy for my taste. My goal, one that I’ll never achieve, is a gyro no heavier I. I’ve never weighed more than 160 lbs.
 
The gyro in the flick previously posted is the nearest I’ve ever come, Brian, at 240 lbs. I’d have to gain 80 lbs. to achieve my dream.
 
The gyro in the flick previously posted is the nearest I’ve ever come, Brian, at 240 lbs. I’d have to gain 80 lbs. to achieve my dream.

It also happens to be powered by what is (or was) statistically the most reliable Rotax engine Chuck. Maybe not in a gyro has we tend to scream them a bit.

A 503 will happlily fly two people around in more efficient craft.
 
And guess what Brian, that 503 cost ~$800 when I bought it in the mid 1980s.

Rotax or rather Bombardier have discovered just how much money can be squeezed out of anything that says “aircraft.”

And the lawyers have learned just how much money can be squeezed out of Bombardier.

If nothing but inflation was considered, the 503 today would sell for $1640.

$1.00 in 1985 had the same buying power as $2.05 in 2010.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
 
Last edited:
I think Bones wins Brian, he has more "la la's" than you.

Graeme.

Too right Graeme and to top it off, it wasnt the engine that objected to the ethanol but my fuel flow meter which stopped working......untill I drained that fuel out and replaced it and the meter slowly started working again.

Yes, I did check filters and washed the transducer out before replacing the fuel.

Obviously the fuel you are using Bones isnt iterfering with your meter?
 
Subaru’s link to aircraft engines is pretty nebulous.

When Subaru undertook a light aircraft resembling a low wing Piper, they used a Lycoming.

Thats good enough proof for me Mr Beaty and why not go with a "certified" proven engine that was designed specificially for the purpose.

As I said before, water cooled engines have a lot of problems when they have to fit radiators etc under tight cowlings. I guess anything can be made work but it would come at a cost both doller wise and complexity.
 
There is no doubt that the 912 /914 are very much overpriced, particularly when they still insist on using carbies and magnetos, like is this really 2010 or 1956??? [and 2 of them] when most of Rotaxes used EFI in their land /water products.

Even Lycoming have seen the light !!
 
Top