The Murphy Builders Site

Received: from MMoreho699@aol.com
by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id EFZDa26167
for <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: <MMoreho699@aol.com>
Message-ID: <74ef3e52.35b43078@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:08:55 EDT
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: EA81 vs Rotax 912
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 161

Hello!

I believe Bobp suggested the Subaru EA81 was 80 hp and weighed twice as much
as the Rotax. My figures show about 220 vs. 170. Also is this 80hp for stock
cams? Using the worse case scenario (80hp) I get 50# less useful load, which
to my eyes doesn't sound like it is under powered.

Comments?

Dan
R280
.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received: from [204.191.150.191] (helo=ts18-16.tor.istar.ca)
by mail2.toronto.istar.net with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2)
for murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
id 0yyl6X-00019m-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:41:53 -0400
X-Sender: crs1188@inforamp.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com> (Murphy Rebel)
From: Bob Patterson <bob.patterson@canrem.com>
Subject: Re: EA81 vs Rotax 912
Message-Id: <E0yyl6X-00019m-00@mail2.toronto.istar.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:41:53 -0400


My Rotax manual says the 912 weighs 128 lb. complete. Subaru weights
vary depending on the converter... (most seem to weigh MORE than claimed
by the time they get installed.)

The EA-81 is no longer in production, and parts will become more
scarce as time goes on. There are many claims as to the horsepower of
modified EA-81's - buyer beware !! (I believe the stock hp is in the 60's)

In any case, you are completely ON YOUR OWN for engine mounts, cowling
radiators, wiring, and plumbing. This is a FORMIDABLE JOB for an
EXPERIENCED BUILDER, and not to be undertaken lightly. This is why the
Murphy factory does NOT recommend you try to use the EA-81. You can't
expect them to answer ANY questions regarding YOUR custom installation.
(Don't forget, your prop will likely turn the opposite direction to the
factory supported engines, as well as at a much different speed - this
may effect fin offset, ground handling, and flight characteristics.)

If you go with any auto conversion, be prepared to spend the best
part of ONE EXTRA YEAR working on engine-related details, as mentioned
above, PLUS fiddling with different cowling entry & exit holes, oil
coolers, radiators, propellers, spinners, etc. , etc. ....

........bobp

----------------------------------orig.----------------------------------
At 02:08 AM 7/21/98 EDT, you wrote:

Hello!

I believe Bobp suggested the Subaru EA81 was 80 hp and weighed twice as

much

as the Rotax. My figures show about 220 vs. 170. Also is this 80hp for

stock

cams? Using the worse case scenario (80hp) I get 50# less useful load,

which

to my eyes doesn't sound like it is under powered.

Comments?

Dan
R280

Received: from chk1a10.dial.uniserve.ca [204.244.143.105]
by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #4)
id 0z0wTN-0005AZ-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:14:29 -0700
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980727160659.37e7417a@pop.uniserve.com>
X-Sender: murtech@pop.uniserve.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: <murphy-rebel@dcsol.com> (Murphy Rebel)
From: Murphy Aircraft Tech Department <murtech@murphyair.com >
Subject: Re: EA81 vs Rotax 912
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:14:29 -0700

At 06:41 PM 7/21/98 -0400, you wrote:

My Rotax manual says the 912 weighs 128 lb. complete. Subaru weights
vary depending on the converter... (most seem to weigh MORE than claimed
by the time they get installed.)

The EA-81 is no longer in production, and parts will become more
scarce as time goes on. There are many claims as to the horsepower of
modified EA-81's - buyer beware !! (I believe the stock hp is in the 60's)

In any case, you are completely ON YOUR OWN for engine mounts, cowling
radiators, wiring, and plumbing. This is a FORMIDABLE JOB for an
EXPERIENCED BUILDER, and not to be undertaken lightly. This is why the
Murphy factory does NOT recommend you try to use the EA-81. You can't
expect them to answer ANY questions regarding YOUR custom installation.
(Don't forget, your prop will likely turn the opposite direction to the
factory supported engines, as well as at a much different speed - this
may effect fin offset, ground handling, and flight characteristics.)

If you go with any auto conversion, be prepared to spend the best
part of ONE EXTRA YEAR working on engine-related details, as mentioned
above, PLUS fiddling with different cowling entry & exit holes, oil
coolers, radiators, propellers, spinners, etc. , etc. ....

........bobp

----------------------------------orig.----------------------------------
At 02:08 AM 7/21/98 EDT, you wrote:

Hello!

I believe Bobp suggested the Subaru EA81 was 80 hp and weighed twice as

much

as the Rotax. My figures show about 220 vs. 170. Also is this 80hp for

stock

cams? Using the worse case scenario (80hp) I get 50# less useful load,

which

to my eyes doesn't sound like it is under powered.

Comments? No Comment!

Dan
R280

Murphy Aircraft Mfg. Ltd.
Ph: 1-604-792-5855
Fax: 1-604-792-7006
e-mail: murtech@murphyir.com
Web Site: http://www.murphyair.com