Foxcon?

[marshallarts]

Anyone here know anything about the Foxcon LSAs, from north Qld?  I'd never heard of them until I just noted one for sale on planesales.com.au.  I found their website (rather basic), all quite interesting - the Terrier 200 seems to be the mainstream model.  They look quite nice in the pics - about the only thing that doesn't appeal (to me anyway) is the double wing struts, as they would intrude into the view quite a bit I think.  They seem to be pushing the Subaru EA81 engine, another thing I know nothing about.  But they also mention the good ol' Rotax 912.  It isn't entirely clear to me whether they do factory-built, or only build-it-yourself.  There are a few used aircraft for sale on the Foxcon website too, all with not many hours.  Anyway, if anyone here has some experience with these, I'd be interested to hear their impressions.  Not because I'm a potential buyer or builder, just interested to see another Aussie manufacturer.

Edited May 16, 2021 by marshallarts

[FlyBoy1960]

I heard a long time ago they were advertising themselves as LSA and got taken to the ringer by CASA because the Subaru engine doesn't meet the ASTM standards, and the aircraft is not built by a company that could ever comply with the LSA requirements (ASTM standards) for engineering or production (so I was told during and RA-Aus meet the people event).

 

There was one at our airfield for many years and it was out of the sky for a long time getting converted from factory built registration (for which it never ever complied, but was registered by the RA-Aus by mistake) and then it went to the 19 category which is amateur built, non-factory built or certified. The Subaru engine was far from reliable and gave the owner so much trouble that he eventually sold everything for about 20 grand and gave up flying forever.

 

The new owner that purchased it was from Perth and he got as far as Goondiwindi before the engine destroyed itself for about the 4th time and the last I heard it had been tied down there and abandoned with the new owner deciding the aircraft was not going to do what he wanted so he caught the bus to Brisbane and flew back to Perth and then took legal action against the owner.

 

I was never told the outcome.  The best thing to do in my opinion would be to contact the RA-Aus technical people and ask them about the aircraft, problems, reliability, how many were made, how many hours flown and from there you can make an informed and considered decision. It might take a week or 2 but they said that they had access to all of this information at the latest meet and greet.

[FlyBoy1960]

Forgot to mention, the last I heard they were trying to sell the project about 4 or 5 years ago to some sort of "entrepreneur from PNG" who was going to sell dozens of them in PNG.

 

He was lobbying the government to invest millions in the Terrier, the Sapphire (from memory) and a Chinese copy of the 172 as well as some helicopter from somewhere that eludes me. He did quite a bit of what you on pprune to try and get people to write to the group and say what a good idea it was so he can take it to the PNG government and show support for the project. As far as I know nothing ever happened and everything just disappeared 6 months after it was released with the fanfare

[marshallarts]

Thanks for all that.  Doesn't sound like it's something that is going anywhere really.  Not anywhere worthwhile, anyway.

[onetrack]

You just have to wonder at the number of Foxcons for sale with extremely low hours. I mean to say, "built in 2003, only 12 hrs TT"?

In addition, every single page on their website, and all their aircraft information is undated - a sure sign of a lack of attention to important detail.

 

The Subaru engine is a poor choice, they are heavy and unreliable. They're bad enough in the cars, but as an aviation powerplant, they're just not up to it.

They're notorious for head gasket leaks and rocker cover gasket leaks, excessive oil consumption issues, faulty valves (a manufacturing fault) and deficient valve springs.

 

One of the problems with Subaru, is that Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent company of Subaru is not anywhere near big enough to be able to have enough of their own factories to produce the number of vehicles they manage to sell.

So FHI subcontract a lot of component manufacturing out to Nissan and Toyota. The Toyota components are O.K., but the Nissan components are not up to Toyota quality, and as a result, the poor Nissan QC appears as Subaru faults.

 

Toyota have been increasing their ownership stake in FHI and now own 20% of FHI. But at this point, Nissan still supply some components for Subaru. The problems with Nissan products extend on two fronts.

 

1. There is a lot of internal discord within Nissan management due to a number of serious management and ownership changes over the decades. Toyota have a "familial" line of management, with less discord.

2. Nissan utilise over 100 sub-contractors to supply components on a JIT basis. These sub-contractors belong to a co-operative association, known as "Takara-kai" under Nissan.

The reason for Takara-kai is reportedly for better QC training of sub-contracting companies, and more integrated decision-making. But Takara-kai is not the same as actually owning the factory and controlling the entire production process.

So the result is, with Nissans management discord, and a less-than-satisfactory level of control over sub-contractors output and QC, Nissan products fall short of acceptable quality, more often than Toyota products do.

 

The Foxcon appears to offer exceptional performance and abilities with a highly competitive product. But the company itself obviously has a lot of financial and management problems (not unusual in aviation), and one must be very aware of this background, and a potential loss of manufacturer support, or even the complete disappearance of the company, if one becomes involved with the brand.

 

http://www.foxcon.com/Aircraft-For-Sale.html

[440032]

From Foxcon website:

The Subaru EA81 was originally designed & developed as an Aircraft Engine and then later modified for Automotive use when Subaru pulled out of the aviation business.

I'll call bullshit on that - can't find a thing on it. I'm happy to stand corrected.

 

I did find this though:

It must be borne in mind that Fuji and Subaru do not authorize the use of Subaru engines or parts by any company, nor do they represent or warrant that their engines are suitable for use in aircraft of any kind. Any company modifying Subaru auto engines for aircraft use is not affiliated in any way with Subaru.

 

Have lost count how many Subaru head gaskets we've done at work in the last couple of years. Would be fairly easy in an aircraft, it's a PITA in a car - gotta take the engine out.

[spacesailor]

My mechanic ( Subaru trained ) say,s most head problems are lack of tourqeing the bolts regularly. ( stretchy bolts )

Fixed many whilst working in that profession.

(  even l had one ) 

spacesailor

Edited May 16, 2021 by spacesailor
Missed word

[bushcaddy105]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

You just have to wonder at the number of Foxcons for sale with extremely low hours. I mean to say, "built in 2003, only 12 hrs TT"?

In addition, every single page on their website, and all their aircraft information is undated - a sure sign of a lack of attention to important detail.

 

The Subaru engine is a poor choice, they are heavy and unreliable. They're bad enough in the cars, but as an aviation powerplant, they're just not up to it.

They're notorious for head gasket leaks and rocker cover gasket leaks, excessive oil consumption issues, faulty valves (a manufacturing fault) and deficient valve springs.

 

One of the problems with Subaru, is that Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent company of Subaru is not anywhere near big enough to be able to have enough of their own factories to produce the number of vehicles they manage to sell.

So FHI subcontract a lot of component manufacturing out to Nissan and Toyota. The Toyota components are O.K., but the Nissan components are not up to Toyota quality, and as a result, the poor Nissan QC appears as Subaru faults.

 

Toyota have been increasing their ownership stake in FHI and now own 20% of FHI. But at this point, Nissan still supply some components for Subaru. The problems with Nissan products extend on two fronts.

 

1. There is a lot of internal discord within Nissan management due to a number of serious management and ownership changes over the decades. Toyota have a "familial" line of management, with less discord.

2. Nissan utilise over 100 sub-contractors to supply components on a JIT basis. These sub-contractors belong to a co-operative association, known as "Takara-kai" under Nissan.

The reason for Takara-kai is reportedly for better QC training of sub-contracting companies, and more integrated decision-making. But Takara-kai is not the same as actually owning the factory and controlling the entire production process.

So the result is, with Nissans management discord, and a less-than-satisfactory level of control over sub-contractors output and QC, Nissan products fall short of acceptable quality, more often than Toyota products do.

 

The Foxcon appears to offer exceptional performance and abilities with a highly competitive product. But the company itself obviously has a lot of financial and management problems (not unusual in aviation), and one must be very aware of this background, and a potential loss of manufacturer support, or even the complete disappearance of the company, if one becomes involved with the brand.

 

http://www.foxcon.com/Aircraft-For-Sale.html

Onetrack,

While I can't/won't say much about Foxcon, I will take exception to your generalized comments about Subaru engines being " just not up to it". How do I know? - I have worked on and driven Subarus as our family cars since the early 1980's. I also have been flying my 19- aircraft behind a Subaru EA81 for 830 hours over the last 15 years. I elected to power my aircraft with the Subaru rather than Rotax for 2 main reasons:- the early gyro musterers used EA81 engines both as direct drive and with Rotax or Hirth gearbox reduction drives or various toothed belt redrives. They literally thrashed those engines unmercifully, with very few failures. I have rebuilt engines for these gyros. The other reason is that my entire firewall forward installation at the time cost under $5,000, and servicing and maintenance costs are negligible compared to the Rotax. And I chose to use the belt reduction drive made for Foxcon, which if set up correctly and maintained according to schedule has been very reliable. My only penalty for this choice is a 20Kg weight penalty over the Rotax published weights, every item of installation accounted for and weighed in order to calculate W&B for engine mount design.

BUT, like any engineering work, the quality of the finished product depends on the quality of the workmanship and of the components used. I did my own conversion of my EA81 after inspecting "commercial" conversions including that done by Foxcon on the Terrier. I did it my way, and have been rewarded by the reliability to date. No oil leaks or excessive consumption, no valve issues, no deficient valve springs, no head gasket leaks. It is the much later EJ25 engines that suffered head gasket issues, usually after overheating from coolant loss due to poor maintenance.

I agree with you that the Terrier performance figures are not substantiated - I wouldn't dare to claim 100 HP AND reliability from an EA81 being run at the revs necessary to achieve that output. I estimate about 90 HP maximum and I cruise at 4,200 rpm maximum, closely approximating the engine revs of a 1980's Subaru 4-speed at 110 K/hr.

I haven't heard of Foxcon being in business for many years, so I don't know if their is any legacy service outlet.

[onetrack]

Quote

The Subaru EA81 was originally designed & developed as an Aircraft Engine and then later modified for Automotive use when Subaru pulled out of the aviation business.

I'll call bullshit on that - can't find a thing on it. I'm happy to stand corrected.

440032 - You don't have to stand corrected, it is BS. And I don't know where it came from, but this story is repeated regularly, without any verification.

 

I think perhaps the story originated because the Nakajima Aircraft Co was the predecessor of Fuji Heavy Industries - and Fuji did build the Fuji FA-200 Aero Subaru trainer light aircraft from 1968 to 1986.

 

But the FA-200 was powered with a Lycoming, Fuji has never built a horizontally-opposed aircraft engine. However, they used their "aviation experience and background" in the design of their automotive flat fours.

But these Subaru flat four engines were designed specifically for their cars, and nothing else. The EA series traces its introduction back to 1966, when the EA52 appeared. The 1800cc EA81 appeared in 1980 in the Subaru Leone.

 

Fuji are still in the aviation/aerospace manufacturing industry in a big way - in the shape of Subaru Aerospace - but they build military aviation products and aviation components, for the Japanese military, and for the likes of Boeing, Bell Textron, and other aerospace manufacturers.

Fuji Heavy Industries actually changed their company group name to Subaru Corporation in 2017, a change I've only just discovered.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Subaru_engines

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_Corporation#Divisions

 

https://www.subaru.co.jp/en/outline/business_aero.html

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by onetrack

[Paul davenport]

Yep same here Bush caddy. Over300 hrs on my Avid nil problems to date I cruise at 4000 which is around the cruise speed of said brumby utes  around the 90 hp as you state  and using 12 lph.  A bit heavier than I like but cheap as chips to run compared to 912 and certainly reliable

[red750]

Member @Arron25 flies a Terrier.

[pluessy]

I met Helmut (the owner) a 5-6 years ago when I was looking at the Terrier. I didn't like the way you had to climb over the gear leg and squeeze through the door to get into the seat.

 

At that time, he was talking about out-sourcing the fibreglass work to China. He still had all the moulds for the components at his shed/factory. Not sure what happened since then.

Edited May 17, 2021 by pluessy
correction