Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Subaru carb, manifold ect

26 posts in this topic

Posted

I bought some Subaru parts off of barnstormers that showed up today.  Anyone have any experience with similar ones?  I believe the manifold and water tank are made by Ram Performance.  The carb is a Rev flow 36 MM from revmaster.  Good, bad, or otherwise?  Jim Chuk

post-329-0-77041000-1441416827_thumb.jpg

post-329-0-86391600-1441416842_thumb.jpg

post-329-0-46596000-1441416866_thumb.jpg

post-329-0-54728700-1441416885_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wish I knew more about these - The manifold sure looks a lot lighter than the stock one - is that water connections for heat? I could use one for a Holly 5200 carb, or maybe an Aero TBI.

EdMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's the coolant lines that runs through through the manifold.either in or out of the radiator. Can't remember which

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The manifold is real light, a lb or two.  Jim Chuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I forget what the Soob manifold weights are - maybe 7 or 9 lbs? Have to read my books.

I have one book (somewhere?) that tells how to make a fiberglass manifold for it.

Looks like the carb angle would be wrong for my Holly.

Is that Rev thingy a carb or a TBI?

I wonder what RAM charges for an intake manifold?

EdMO

Those water fittings look too small for rad hoses - maybe a connecting hose between them? The water passage between the sides runs thru part of the original intake, I think.

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is a link to the carb on Revmaster's site. http://revmasteraviation.com/?p=206The fittings on the manifold connect to the two smaller fitting on the side of the water tank in the last picture. Jim Chuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just checked the RAM site - They will sell you a new 115hp Multi-point Fuel-injected EA-81 for $10K, or a 160hp supercharged one for $5K more - plus reduction unit for $4K or 5K. I only found the flanges for the manifold.

EDMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ed - I think RAM's prices jumped significantly since their relocation to SC. Used to be close enough for me to drive to in OH and I was pretty hot on the 115hp option for my A+ after I decided to make it my go-fast land plane. Then, their head and prices got a bit too big for my liking. Their 160hp might be a bit much for our little birds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Doug,

NEVER too much hp - maybe just too much weight to add more on it!

I think that when Stratus2000 went out of business, and Dave Johnson died, NSI was gone, and RAM just didn't have enough competition to keep prices low. They are still compatible with what Stratus was selling for years ago.

Egg in Canada sure didn't sell his junk cheap! Look at the price of a new Viking.

Right now if I didn't have a EA-81 and a plane modified for it, I would be researching and pricing the Yamaho RX1, for the light weight 4-stroke.

EdMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think that UL Power Aero engines are an excellent engine for our market. I am building a firewall forward kit for a C model now. Direct drive, horizontally opposed, four cylinder, air cooled, dual electronic ignition, multi point fuel injection and FADEC. I like to think of it as the best of the old with the best of the new combined. 97 and 130 hp in 4 different four cylinder engines that weigh 165 to 175 pounds installed. The prices range from about 16,000 to 20,000 depending on which engine you choose. After researching all these different aftermarket experimental aircraft engines UL POWER the company I decided to go with both personally and as a company to represent. I realize there are less expensive engines out there but not many and definitely not with all this built in modern safety and technology. Also everything is all about timing right guys?

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If this was 15 years ago and I was still working I would have more options on engines. Since I have a $2500 engine ready to go in my plane, and only retirement income, I am out of the engine market.

EdMO

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The first UL Power engine that came into the country went onto an Avid Flyer. It was a slow project and I've lost track of it, wonder if it's being flown?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What rpm in UL Power turning to make full HP?  3300, right?

 

Figuring the speed of sound is 1126 feet per second, a simple calculation using .85 mach at the tip, this limits the engine to a 66" prop.  (3323 rpm to tip speed of .85 mach)

 

 

 

How does the static thrust of a small prop like this compare to an industry standard like Rotax which can turn a large diameter prop at lower rpm?  Not very well.  This is why the high rpm engines, UL Power, Jabaru, Volkswagen, etc. have had very limited success in light STOL planes like Avid and Kitfox.  I have seen several instances of people trying to run VWs and Jabs in Avids and Kitfoxes with minimal success.  They showed poor takeoff and climb performance and these two engines both suffer cooling difficulties with slow air speeds.

 

I don't intend to disparage the UL Power engines.  They have a great design and show a ton of promise, in the right application.

Edited by Av8r3400
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Larry,

I agree that the big prop performance is a lot better in our type of birds -

The VW when used with a reduction drive and larger prop also performs a lot better than the high rpm straight drive engines.

My personal preferences include reduction drives and liquid cooling, for several reasons.

EdMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I do have to stick up a bit for the Jabiru though. I put about 450 hrs on my Jab/Avid before I blew the oil cooler hose and put it on it's top at the end of a too short field. Climb performance was very close to what it was before with the 582. Cruise was better. Usually I ran the 582 at 70-75 MPH, about 5000-5200 RPM and would burn about 3.5 gal per hr then. With the Jab, I would cruise about 10-15 mph faster and burn 4 gal per hr. For most of the hrs on the Jab, I was running a 64" two blade square tip Warp Drive prop. Jim Chuk

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jim,

How did the hp compare between the Avid 582 and Jab? Is this an equal comparison?

How would a 912 stack up against the 2200 Jab :huh:

EdMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Guys look at the props on the Zenith and Just Aircraft for starters. Larger than the specs listed above for sure. I know you are talking about peak HP when looking at UL graphs. That being said the rated HP at 2500 to 2700 is at or above Rotax #'s. Those props on the above aircraft are 68 to 72" props ( I believe, will check with Mfgs) Also companies like Kitfox already have FWF kits designed for our 350iS 130 HP. Still more real world power than the more Costly, complex and heavier Rotax 912. And the UL is not a " high RPM direct drive" engine. Take a look at the graphs on our site, real torque and HP is between 2500-2700 RPM. And if you talk to someone like Roger from Zenith, he will tell you that you don't have to keep out of the throttle to keep her from over revving. I'll be honest, I don't spend a lot of time crunching #'s with this. I just apply the real world feedback I get from our engines in the field. Hope this helps. I'm just wanting to help folks get to know what I consider to be one of the best light sport engines out there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here is a link to Zeniths site. My question is, if the engine works well on the Zenith STOL and Cruzer, Kitfox, etc... Why would it not work for our Avids?

http://www.zenithair.net/engine-and-instruments/

I'm always wanting to learn and really appreciate everyone's input and constructive discussion.

Dennis

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I also spent real world time talking to the Just guys at Airventure.  "Lots of kinks to work out, yet."  Like I said, these engines show plenty of promise, but having a FWF ready for an engine doesn't mean much when 95% of the kits are finally flown running a different engine.  You mention the Kitfox FWF, is there actually one flying yet?

 

Jim, you are saying that the climb performance on the 85hp Jabaru was not quite as good as the 62hp Rotax, but top speed was better?  That seems to fit perfectly to the data comparing the long versus short props I was mentioning.

 

Ed, there are two active Mk IV Avids in my flying group that I hang around, one with a 912UL (landed at my house) and the other with a (recently modded) liquid cooled Jabaru.  Performance comparison between them is not even in the same league.  The Rotax will out perform the Jab in every aspect of the flight, by far.  Also, by the time you put a redrive and liquid cooling on a VW you will have enough weight and money in it that a Rotax or even a Continental would be cheaper not to mention much lighter.

 

Flyhigh, understand you are trying to sell engines or installations or whatever, but, honestly the Rotax engines are still the benchmark, best bang for the buck and are unquestionably the top performers in this segment.  Period.  Someday someone will come out with something better.  Thus far, I haven't seen or heard of it.  yet.

 

 

 

So many people seem to love to hate on Rotax.  I guess that speaks volumes to their position and success.  I'm real happy with mine.  I'm looking forward to running the big bore mod Rotax in my new plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Larry,

Can you tell us a little more about the big bore 912 - how much bigger, hp, etc?

Mike Jacober in Alaska showed me the first 912 I had ever seen in the 90's. The price back then scared me.

I had just bought my first Soob engine for $400.

I didn't mean to add liquid cooling to the VW, just greatly increasing the torque and size of prop with a redrive.

I think of junkyard VW engines, not the greatly increased price aftermarket ones.

You can overhaul a VW or Soob for pennies compared to any "Aircraft" engine, and VW pistons will go in a bored Soob.

I would still like to hear more about the Yama RX1 - First I have heard of it - I lead a sheltered life, and have no one to talk to about engines except on here!

EdMO

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I will do a write up on the big bore when I get to it. Right now I'm still wrangling spaghetti...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I remember stringing that in school - instructor pointed out my mistakes so many times I wanted to hide - and I was in electronics and was an electrician before becoming a toolmaker, A&P, etc.

My biggest "miracle" was wiring in a Red LED warning light to tell you if a breaker had disconnected, or showing that Cessna used the wrong transistor for their light dimmer circuit. I thought I was an Einstein! Ha!

Thanks - Have fun.

EdMo

Edited by Ed In Missouri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am like Ed; I like to hear about the performance, and reliability, of all the alternatives.  Not to say that Rotax is not setting the bar, but the UL's are very intreging and would like to know more about any in use on Avids and KF's.  My interest is more in the short field side rather than high speed so am interested in the props these are running as well.  I can't complain about my Subie but one of these days I might wear it out and try something new if I have a wad of money burning a hole in my pocket. 

 

And I am interested is what th big bore 912 comes in at in total cost Larry, as well as the performance compared to your 100 hp 912?

 

One thing I was surprised about this spring at the aviation trade show I was in talking to the rep from CATO; they were making 80" to 84" props for the 912.  I thought Rotax limited the prop size on these to 70"?

Edited by SuberAvid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I'm back on line, changed my email address, and somehow messed up getting onto this site, and then a thunderstorm knocked off our power from early evening till about 5 AM. Just to clairify a few things with the Jabiru that were mentioned. It is supposed to put out 80 HP and the 582 is 65. My takeoff and climb performance was pretty much the same with either engine in the MK IV. I do agree with the thought that short props at higher rpm are not as good as long props at slower rpm for our type of plane. That is one disadvantage the Jabiru definatly does have. Jim Chuk

PS Leni, thanks for your help in getting me back on line...

Edited by Jim Chuk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

One thing I was surprised about this spring at the aviation trade show I was in talking to the rep from CATO; they were making 80" to 84" props for the 912.  I thought Rotax limited the prop size on these to 70"?

Rotax has no limit on diameter. They have a calculation called the Maas moment of inertia (MMOI) which calculates the stress going into the gearbox rotationally. These large props are very lightweight, so the MMOI is less than a smaller diameter heavy prop, like a Warp Drive.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2010764613001

I am putting on a 78" Prince on my Mangy Fox, it weighs less than 9 pounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0