Very confused..

[Heron]

There! See? did not hurt a bit.
You can go both ways but only Experimental.
Have fun with a Rotax 912 and travel far with a Subaru or Mazda.
Now that you have made your decision lets start another thread and build the new ship.
Starts like this: I got this 2.5 Subaru with very few miles in it.
Heron

 

[raton]

We are all getting confused now. You start of saying you want a certified reliable machine with a submarine engine on it. Then when evrybody says, it will not be the most reliable, you say you don't want to talk about engines. Well that's what makes it reliable. The best engine they made was the ea81, simple, no cam belts, lighter, about 70 to 80 kg. Thick wallsetc. With a turbo, maybe get 120 hp. But to get a 2 seater up and reliable, i agree with birdy on the rotax. I've seen seized waterpumps, cracked exhausts etc on soobies. Why did you not just simply state that you can't afford a specially designed aircraft engine.

Perhaps you are confused, yes I want a factory build gyro not necessarily certified ,without a submarine engine but able to take a Subaru engine. Most of the gentleman here have the bellowed Rotax on their contraptions and if someone just happens to mention a different engine.. they see it red and some go yellow.

For a fully enclosed all weather gyro that seats two, long range, luggage and whatnot, and for similar gyros some manufacturer like the UFO, Kruza, Sport Copter*, to mention some, they are using Subaru EJ25 engines. Whit all due respect to birdy , he fly’s a light contraption and for that Rotax would suffice, but if we go with bigger contraption I would need two Rotax engines.

Having cracked valves and sized water pumps on Subaru engines is possible, but by the same talking I have seen cracked Lycoming crankshafts ,cracked engine blocks on Rotax engines and falling 747 falling of the sky form too.

This is not about money …

raton

* now using Lyncoming

 

[All_In]

Raton, I perceived the information you were told much differently than you.
I heard experts that have owned and flown a subaru advice a novice who was already convince without any experience that subaru's are perfect.
Why ask the experts with years of experience flying them at all?

 

[raton]

There! See? did not hurt a bit.
You can go both ways but only Experimental.
Have fun with a Rotax 912 and travel far with a Subaru or Mazda.
Now that you have made your decision lets start another thread and build the new ship.
Starts like this: I got this 2.5 Subaru with very few miles in it.
Heron

There! See? did not hurt a bit.
ignorância dói

You can go both ways but only Experimental.
Aren’t they all experimental ..?

Have fun with a Rotax 912 and travel far with a Subaru or Mazda.
not into fun, don’t know about Mazda but I am sure with a Subaru travel far

Now that you have made your decision lets start another thread and build the new ship.
Not interested in building a machine, has to be factory build

Starts like this: I got this 2.5 Subaru with very few miles in it.
nope, it will be a new modified Subaru engine, O miles on it

raton

 

[raton]

Raton, I perceived the information you were told much differently than you.
I heard experts that have owned and flown a subaru advice a novice who was already convince without any experience that subaru's are perfect.
Why ask the experts with years of experience flying them at all?

Hi
Yes is possible, buy my information and facts are different than those experts, already asked the ‘experts’ and for my proposes the Subaru is the indicate engine. Till now no expert has come forward (with facts) to refute my assertions.

raton

 

[Resasi]

Well Raton guess that makes you the 'expert' then.

BTW one definition of expert. X is the unknown factor. Spurt is an elongated drip.

 

[raton]

Well Raton guess that makes you the 'expert' then.

BTW one definition of expert. X is the unknown factor. Spurt is an elongated drip.

What is an expert..? How do I assess the advice of others whose competence I don't share?

raton

 

[All_In]

Hi
Yes is possible, buy my information and facts are different than those experts, already asked the ‘experts’ and for my proposes the Subaru is the indicate engine. Till now no expert has come forward (with facts) to refute my assertions.

raton

As I said, your understanding of the facts that we both read is much different, that's all! I have a great deal of book learning, probably more than most learning is my real hobby!!! It's not the same as 3000 hours of experience running these engines in flight that the pro's here have given us for free, now is it?

 

[raton]

As I said, your understanding of the facts that we both read is much different, that's all! I have a great deal of book learning, probably more than most learning is my real hobby!!! It's not the same as 3000 hours of experience running these engines in flight that the pro's here have given us for free, now is it?

Ok.. I see what you mean, buy book worms and 3000 hours of experience doesn’t tell me why can’t a Subaru powered gyro fly safely, other that is to heavy and unreliable… and Rotax is the mother of all engines..!

raton

 

[Resasi]

My facetious comment aside, I suppose we take an expert to be someone who has full command of all the facts and with the experience to back his knowledge up.

 

[All_In]

Well no!
Subaru's are great But!!!
Here are the facts I heard:

That most real pilots with experience want the most proven power plant in the air for its weight to power ratio That’s the only thing that matters to them and most high time pilots not the new or old design of the engine but its actual tract record in rotorcraft.
I head them say that flying is about risk management, the less you risk the longer you live.
And if the Subaru had been designed for an aircraft with millions of flight hours we’d be using it too.
I head that dependably of an engine in the air is why most select the “old dinosaur engine” if they could afford it.
I heard that they only lower our choice to a Sub’s if we can not afford the proven tested designs.
I head real experience share what has proven to those actually flying, that most here with experience would choose a Lyc. or Continental = Best and 1st choice if we could afford it.
2nd actual experience as show the pro's here that = Rotax as now proven to be more dependable than Sub’s designed for a car, sorry!
3rd Hirth and may be Subaru's are tied.

Now no one is saying don't use or fly a Subaru we like them all. The only hour I have logged in a gyro with an instructor had a Subaru engine, love the sound of it too.

I don't want one and your not going to convince anyone with real experience as a pilot, we ALL already know the benefits of the superior design for the rotary engine we just wish it weighed less had two spark plugs and did not fail more often in our rotorcraft than a Lyc, or Rotax in real life.

PS:
I also heard that a 120 hp Yamaha engine that is proven to be dependable in snowmobiles is proving to be much cheaper, weigh less, and better choice than the Subaru for rotorcraft.
Same facts two different interpretations, that's all.

 

[raton]

Get It..?
No.


Orr hang on,
that is my firm believe and nothing will sway my sentiments towards a Subaru engine.
yes i do get it, your mind is closed.

will must admit you have an intricate knowledge into your skeleton gyro and must add after seeing some of you flying capabilities with your craft is awesome............I will let you know once I get my gyro and will take religiously your advise about flying expertise’s
This IS a wurry.
Nun of wot i suggested till now was worth jacksh1t, but after you see sum vid, you change your mind.?????

all wanted is to find a factory built gyro capable of taking a Subaru engine.
By all means, go for it, nuthn rong with that.
Just cant see the reasoning, and wen i questioned your reasoning you start hangn sh1t on anythn and anyone that isnt soob.

One thing you can count on Raton, if ever anythn better than a 912 cums onto the market, ill be the first in line, and ill be getn 2 of um.
But as it is, the over priced, unreliable, unecconomical, heavy heap o sh1t 912 will have to suffice.

Birdy, frankly never question your flying ability but when is comes to my preferred engine for a given gyro I don’t share you point of view.. nothing personal , ya know.

My reasoning ..? here we go again, for a heavier gyro I would need a more powerful engine,Rotax, doesn’t have the juice, besides a bit delicate too , ya know, just changing da oil is a maternity procedure. But , hey take the blinkers off a Subaru EJ25 properly dressed could be better than your present donkey, yes heavy = powa..!

raton

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

raton, I may not be the expert you are on the subject of reliability of engines.

So, here is a question.

If I were to swap the Lycoming engine in the Pitts S2B and replace it with a Subaru then take off and fly the unlimited aerobatic routine with the Subaru at full throttle and the prop pitch full fine for the whole flying routine how long would the Subaru last before it failed in comparison to the Lycoming?

 

[lanichol]

raton, I may not be the expert you are on the subject of reliability of engines.

Chuck, Kinda restrained opinion. You been to uncle Jack's management class.

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Never heard of uncle Jack, who is he?

 

[lanichol]

Jack Nicholson. Actually we maybe related. It was a just a joke from the movie

 

[raton]

raton, I may not be the expert you are on the subject of reliability of engines.

So, here is a question.

If I were to swap the Lycoming engine in the Pitts S2B and replace it with a Subaru then take off and fly the unlimited aerobatic routine with the Subaru at full throttle and the prop pitch full fine for the whole flying routine how long would the Subaru last before it failed in comparison to the Lycoming?

I don’t know how long it will last, but from the outset we have a problem, Subaru doesn’t have a dry sump, besides gyros can’t do much of aerobatics :violin:

 

[raton]

Well no!
Subaru's are great But!!!
Here are the facts I heard:

That most real pilots with experience want the most proven power plant in the air for its weight to power ratio That’s the only thing that matters to them and most high time pilots not the new or old design of the engine but its actual tract record in rotorcraft.
I head them say that flying is about risk management, the less you risk the longer you live.
And if the Subaru had been designed for an aircraft with millions of flight hours we’d be using it too.
I head that dependably of an engine in the air is why most select the “old dinosaur engine” if they could afford it.
I heard that they only lower our choice to a Sub’s if we can not afford the proven tested designs.
I head real experience share what has proven to those actually flying, that most here with experience would choose a Lyc. or Continental = Best and 1st choice if we could afford it.
2nd actual experience as show the pro's here that = Rotax as now proven to be more dependable than Sub’s designed for a car, sorry!
3rd Hirth and may be Subaru's are tied.

Now no one is saying don't use or fly a Subaru we like them all. The only hour I have logged in a gyro with an instructor had a Subaru engine, love the sound of it too.

I don't want one and your not going to convince anyone with real experience as a pilot, we ALL already know the benefits of the superior design for the rotary engine we just wish it weighed less had two spark plugs and did not fail more often in our rotorcraft than a Lyc, or Rotax in real life.

PS:
I also heard that a 120 hp Yamaha engine that is proven to be dependable in snowmobiles is proving to be much cheaper, weigh less, and better choice than the Subaru for rotorcraft.
Same facts two different interpretations, that's all.

That most real pilots with experience want the most proven power plant in the air for its weight to power ratio That’s the only thing that matters to them and most high time pilots not the new or old design of the engine but its actual tract record in rotorcraft.
Does the Subaru have a bad track record in a gyro..?



I head them say that flying is about risk management, the less you risk the longer you live.
Of course, a well converted Subaru is not riskier than a Lyc, Continental or Rotax by that matter.


And if the Subaru had been designed for an aircraft with millions of flight hours we’d be using it too.
Subaru was designed initially as an aircraft engine but is more money in cars

I head that dependably of an engine in the air is why most select the “old dinosaur engine” if they could afford it.
Not so, hundreds of experimental aircraft builders go for Subaru, if has nothing to do with money


I heard that they only lower our choice to a Sub’s if we can not afford the proven tested designs.
Perhaps you should see the RV site and why those guys chose the Subaru, you might be surprised

I head real experience share what has proven to those actually flying, that most here with experience would choose a Lyc. or Continental =
I heard it differently

Best and 1st choice if we could afford it.
Again nothing to do with affordability

2nd actual experience as show the pro's here that = Rotax as now proven to be more dependable than Sub’s designed for a car, sorry!
LOL…! Sorry, hope you are not serious about this one


3rd Hirth and may be Subaru's are tied.
????

Now no one is saying don't use or fly a Subaru we like them all. The only hour I have logged in a gyro with an instructor had a Subaru engine, love the sound of it too.
Yes , it has great power sound

I don't want one and your not going to convince anyone with real experience as a pilot, we ALL already know the benefits of the superior design for the rotary engine we just wish it weighed less had two spark plugs and did not fail more often in our rotorcraft than a Lyc, or Rotax in real life.
(copy and paste)I’m told that Subaru, in one year, makes more engines than Lycoming has their entire history. That makes for millions of dollars available for product development that Lycoming can just dream of. More importantly, auto engines are routinely improved, modified. If Lycoming makes any improvement, that opens them to lawsuits for all previous designs. So they stagnate. Look how long it took them to implement fuel injection. Clearly, long term, auto engines are the way to go. Lycoming failure rate not apples to apples comparison to Subaru rate …this because Subaru rate in aircraft is unknown and there was no place someone can obtain Lycoming failure information.


PS:
I also heard that a 120 hp Yamaha engine that is proven to be dependable in snowmobiles is proving to be much cheaper, weigh less, and better choice than the Subaru for rotorcraft.I have no idea about Yamaha but I am looking for 170 +HP


Same facts two different interpretations, that's all.I would say apple and oranges
__________________

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

raton I sort of thought that trying to have a discussion with you would be non productive.


However I thought I would give it a try.

I'll go back into reading and let the others here play your game until it gets boring...

Birdy usually gets it right and I share his opinion of your posts.

 

[All_In]

I wish you all the luck in the world!!!