I'd sure like to see your research and sources. Subaru stopped producing aircraft after WW2 when it became the Fuji Sangyo Co. Since then, it has concentrated on rally cars and associated races.
(Fast forward) In 1987, Subaru introduced the XT6 model as a 1988 model with the 145 hp 2.7 L flat-six ER27. The SVX engine/model debuted in 1991, targeting the luxury segment, hence the larger engine. The engine specs are as follows: Bore x stroke : 96.9mm x 75.0mm Engine displacement : 3,318cc Compression ratio : 10.0 Max. output (hp/rpm) : 230/5,400 Max. torque (ft/lb-m/rpm) : 228/4,400 Those specs are not that of an aircraft engine. Those specs clearly show that it produces torque very high in the RPM range, too high for a prop. The only way this thing was ever an aircraft engine is if the stroke was longer, the camshaft different, and the intake ports much smaller. The SVX's EG33 engine was an indirect development of the 2.7 L ER27 flat-6 from the XT6, expanded to 3,318 cc (96.9 mm bore by 75 mm stroke) and equipped with dual overhead camshafts and 4 valves per cylinder. An increase in compression ratio to 10.0:1 brought power to 230 hp (172 kW) at 5,400 rpm and torque to 228 ft.lbf (309 Nm) at 4,400 rpm. If you have better information, I'd love to see it....and your sources for it. Scott --- Dan Michaels <dmic...@grantsburgtelcom.net> wrote: > I have researched this, and the 6 cylinder subaru is > an horozontally opposed > engine same as a Lycoming. It was designed by subaru > for an aircraft. The > aircraft did not take off financially so they > addapted the engine for a car. > Eggenfellner then converted it to an aircraft > engine. This is not the same > as the 4 cylinder Subaru engine that they used to > use. > > Dan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott William" <scot...@yahoo.com> > To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net> > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:37 PM > Subject: Re: KR> Eggenfellner engines > > > > Dan: > > There's a reason Eggenfellner calls them > > "conversions". They weren't designed to > fly....now or > > ever. > > > > Scott > > > > --- Dan Michaels <dmic...@grantsburgtelcom.net> > wrote: > > > >> The newest Subaru engine that they are using is > an > >> aircraft engine, it was > >> designed for this purpose the plane just did not > >> take off. They then put it > >> in a car. > >> > >> Dan > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Scott William" <scot...@yahoo.com> > >> To: <brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net>; "KRnet" > >> <kr...@mylist.net> > >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:23 AM > >> Subject: Re: KR> Eggenfellner engines > >> > >> > >> > Can I simplify this? > >> > > >> > Auto engines are engineered to spend 80% of > thier > >> life > >> > at 20% throttle. > >> > > >> > > >> > Airplane engines are engineered to spend 80% of > >> thier > >> > life at 85% throttle. > >> > > >> > > >> > See the difference? > >> > > >> > Now, some auto engines have inherent design > >> > charachteristics that bode them well in > airplanes. > >> The > >> > Corvair is one that is superb. As mentioned > below, > >> the > >> > 2100 VW with a good forged steel crank is a > good > >> > choice, as is the V6 GM motor. > >> > > >> > As for all the others.....look how they perform > in > >> > boats. They don't last long because of the > large > >> power > >> > requirements on them. Hence, you'll never see a > >> two > >> > bolt main Chevy 350 in a boat. Or a Subaru, for > >> that > >> > matter. > >> > > >> > > >> > Scott > >> > > >> > --- Colin Rainey > <brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Bob Lester at one time ran a Subaru engine > before > >> >> changing over to a Corvair. Problems with the > >> >> crankshafts due to the high rpms necessary to > >> >> produce enough power. Read the Auto Mathbook > for > >> >> some numbers of projected life expectancy when > >> >> engines are subjected to higher and higher > rpms. > >> >> The Chevy 350 is 3.48 inches in stroke and > will > >> >> reach a piston speed that at 6500 rpms will > >> stress > >> >> the crank 4 times what it is at 5500 rpms per > the > >> >> author of the book. Yet by de-stroking that > same > >> >> engine as in the Indy cars, it can be revved > to > >> >> 11,500 and reach the same piston speeds as > 6000 > >> >> rpms, bringing the same stress to the crank. > You > >> >> must do the same things to your chosen engine, > OR > >> >> use an engine that develops more HP than you > >> need, > >> >> so that your rpms can be maintained at a > >> reasonable > >> >> level for longevity. The chosen engine needs > to > >> >> have a broad power band where torque is good > >> where > >> >> you plan to cruise. Peak Hp does not matter > if > >> you > >> >> cannot stay there for long durations. Remember > >> about > >> >> takeoffs, climbs while in cruise flight. > etc... > >> >> > >> >> With the complexity with running a liquid > cooled > >> >> auto engine added to an already complex task > of > >> >> setting up an engine and then matching a prop > to > >> it, > >> >> the idea of getting reliable information > >> concerning > >> >> PSRUs and prop matches is nothing short of > >> daunting. > >> >> The Subarus are reputed to produce X amount > of > >> HP > >> >> but I was not impressed with their > presentation > >> nor > >> >> information, or lack there of at Sun n Fun, > from > >> the > >> >> Eggenfellner group. They seemed full of hipe > but > >> >> would not talk real world knowledge of their > >> >> products. Like REAL hours of use instead of > >> >> projected TBO. Their full rated HP falls WAY > off > >> >> when throttled back for economy cruise. For > all > >> the > >> >> added extras in complexity and weight, you are > >> >> better off with a good 2180 VW or Corvair > 2.7L. > >> The > >> >> three best auto engines I have researched that > >> are > >> >> successful conversions, being used > extensively, > >> with > >> >> LOTS of information available are: 1) the VW > >> 2180; > >> >> 2) the Corvair 2.7L ; 3) the 4.3V6 GM. By far > >> these > >> >> engines have way over the numbers of flying > >> >> conversions that stay in the planes and the > >> owners > >> >> express satisfaction with their performance. > The > >> >> others have smaller numbers, and have short > TBOs > >> >> like the 2 cycle Rotax family. > >> >> > >> >> IMHO I would recommend for our birds, stick > with > >> the > >> >> proven power plants and you will fly sooner, > be > >> >> happier, spend less money, and perform better > >> than > >> >> these other fancy boat anchors. (Ok maybe not > >> boat > >> >> anchor, but definitely tie down anchors ). > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Colin Rainey > >> >> brokerpilot9...@earthlink.net > >> >> EarthLink Revolves Around You. > >> >> _______________________________________ > >> >> Search the KRnet Archives at > >> >> http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > >> >> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
