What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

LSA Engines

Phyrcooler

Phyrcooler

Well Known Member
Talking with a friend/flight instructor this afternoon about LSA aircraft. His little school is becoming a Cessna Pilot Center... and he has been talking to Cessna quite a bit about their up-coming LSA. However, he mentioned that they don't anticipate it becoming available until late next year. What caught my interest was one of the main reasons he relayed to me is the engine. While it is designed around the Rotax - apparently Lycoming is aggressively wooing them while working to release a competitive LSA engine. TCM is also supposedly headed down that path. I know at AOPA in Palm Springs I had an interesting talk with a rep from TCM about their efforts in producing a lighter - more LSA friendly engine as well. So... I only bring this up in hopes that those of you heading to SnF will sniff around and see what the engine manufacturers are playing with, as well as see if Van will consider a change in engines if it doesn't significantly change W&B issues. I am not against the Rotax... but am interested in all the possibilities.

DJ
 
Last edited:
Its going to be tough to compete with the Rotax unless someone starts with a clean sheet design. The 912 is what, 140ish pounds, 85 cid and 100 HP? No way will even a modernized C-90 or 0-200 get close to that.
 
Hot on the trail...

I am planning to go to SnF and plan to be all things LSA. I will gather up as much "stuff" as I can carry back.

...this is my first time going, hope I dont spend too much time gawking at all the shiny planes!
 
The huge LSA market may prompt Lycoming and TCM into new designs. Waits for new Rotax engines is approaching one year now due to demand. A little competition would be a good thing here.

Very difficult to beat the power to weight ratio of a geared engine.
 
G-force said:
Its going to be tough to compete with the Rotax unless someone starts with a clean sheet design. The 912 is what, 140ish pounds, 85 cid and 100 HP? No way will even a modernized C-90 or 0-200 get close to that.
Click to expand...
I'll second that. The Rotax 912S has very good qualities that make it well suited for LSA:
* Enough power to drive most LSA to the 120kt limit
* Low total weight
* Low width, allowing for flexibility in cowling profiles
* Flexible cooling arrangements with the liquid cooled heads and small radiator (e.g., T-51 with the belly mounted radiator)
* Runs well on MoGas
* Quiet

Negatives:
* Gearbox adds cost to overhaul and must be checked regularly
* Frequent oil changes with AvGas (25 hr)
* Small (but growing) maintenance and overhaul network

The Jabiru is a good option, although you need to take special care to give it plenty of cooling. Very small installed base but simpler to work on.

The only way I see Lyc or TCM getting into the market is if Cessna picks them for the LSA project. However, given the lack of progress we've seen from those two over the years, I am not holding my breath and flying the Rotax.
 
I'm curious what is the installed weight of the Rotax is with radiator and fluids?

From the TCM display in Palm Spring this past November their goals were:
  • 200 and 240 CU displacement versions
  • 100 and 120 hp.
  • FAA FAR 33 Cert.
  • Auto fuel Cert.
  • Electronic Ignition and fuel control
  • Target weight of less than 200 lbs.
The Jabiru is listed as 132 lbs. for the 2200 and 178 lbs. for the 3300. So - Lyco/TCM have their work cut out for them. The other issue is unless they are just shaving weight off their current engines... we would be dealing with a brand new product and its potential growing pains. It is understandable why Van designed around the Rotax based on what he had available. It will be interesting to see what evolves later for the RV-12 if/when other engines come to market.
 
Also, the Jabiru weights include exhaust system and are pretty much "installed" weight.
 
Phyrcooler said:
I'm curious what is the installed weight of the Rotax is with radiator and fluids?

From the TCM display in Palm Spring this past November their goals were:
  • Target weight of less than 200 lbs.
The Jabiru is listed as 132 lbs. for the 2200 and 178 lbs. for the 3300. So - Lyco/TCM have their work cut out for them.
Click to expand...
Rotax claims 134 lb for the 912ULS3, dry, without radiator, airbox or exhaust. Radiator and oil cooler are 3.3 lb. 3qt of oil is about 5 lb. 2qt coolant is 4 lb. Airbox will vary from aircraft to aircraft. So, wet weight is about 146.3 lb.

If the O-200 LSA engine is 190 lb, it's 50 lb more than the 912S. In a 1,320 MGTW LSA, 50 lb is significant - 8.3 gal of gas (about 1:30 fuel).

However, if the O-200 LSA really has FI and auto mixture control, that will be a big plus. Lots of people have been hoping for FI on the 912S for years, but there's nothing official yet.
 
We were approached about 8 months ago by an LSA airframer using the new O-200 to develop a FADEC for it but have heard little since. Maybe TCM is coming out with their own now?

The 912 runs better and stronger with EFI. That's all I can say at this time.
 
I'm not against the Rotax, but there are compromises to using it. Gearbox cuts the TBO down quite a bit if I'm not mistaken. The O-200 in it's present state will go 3000hr's or more with one cylinder change mid-time.
 
osxuser said:
I'm not against the Rotax, but there are compromises to using it. Gearbox cuts the TBO down quite a bit if I'm not mistaken. The O-200 in it's present state will go 3000hr's or more with one cylinder change mid-time.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty open minded about engines. Assuming I decide to build a -12, and the Rotax is Van's only engine of choice - I'll roll with it. However, given the choice - I like the KISS principle. I think the Jabiru sounds like a great engine. No gearbox or liquid cooling. But I have reservations... I would be more comfortable if there were greater use (installations) and support (maintenance/repair sites) of the Jab. I don't think that Lyco or TCM will have anything for the experimental market in time to effect my decision.
 
912S

I for one had a series of bad experiences flying behind a Rotax on a Diamond Katana. I keep hoping VAN will give serious cosideration to the O-200...

Regards;

John


the_other_dougreeves said:
Rotax claims 134 lb for the 912ULS3, dry, without radiator, airbox or exhaust. Radiator and oil cooler are 3.3 lb. 3qt of oil is about 5 lb. 2qt coolant is 4 lb. Airbox will vary from aircraft to aircraft. So, wet weight is about 146.3 lb.

If the O-200 LSA engine is 190 lb, it's 50 lb more than the 912S. In a 1,320 MGTW LSA, 50 lb is significant - 8.3 gal of gas (about 1:30 fuel).

However, if the O-200 LSA really has FI and auto mixture control, that will be a big plus. Lots of people have been hoping for FI on the 912S for years, but there's nothing official yet.
Click to expand...
 
I remember from a SnF forum a few years ago that Suzuki also makes a supercharged engine, from a Geo Metro I think, that substitutes nicely for the larger, and far more expensive, Rotax engines. The thing about them that impressed was that that motor was designed to run at continual high speeds.
http://www.raven-rotor.com/html/redrive.html
 
The 3 cylinder Suzuki G10 came turbo from the factory and seem to be pretty robust. There are many flying. Weight is 25-35 lbs. heavier than the 912S but they are dirt cheap and dirt simple. Raven belt drives and SPG-2 gear drives are available. With a proper turbo system, they are quite capable of 100hp.

We make a bolt on EMS for these as well.
 
osxuser said:
I'm not against the Rotax, but there are compromises to using it. Gearbox cuts the TBO down quite a bit if I'm not mistaken. The O-200 in it's present state will go 3000hr's or more with one cylinder change mid-time.
Click to expand...
TBO is currently 1,500 hr for the 912 series. The gearbox is a separate unit and can be overhauled by itself. I agree that if run properly, the O-200 will have a higher actual TBO.
 
Subaru E 81

Eggenfellner, Ram (Ohio) and somebody called sub4 in Denmark are working on aero conversions of the '80's Subaru Brat engine - E-81.

Any decent automotive fuel injection system using air mass flow sensors will automatically and reliably adjust for density altitude.

I see no problem with water cooling and a proper gear reduction (or Gilmer belt re-drive). The gain in higher rpm operating efficiency more than makes up for the re-drive complexity. I hope.

Small displacement Japanese motorcycles have used water cooling for decades with no problems. And a heater might be nice to extend the flying season in colder climates.

But the 4 cylinder Jabiru would be wonderful if they bothered to support builders or cut a deal with Van.

But if Van says 'Rotax'....
 
A benift of having a water cooled engine (BTW, only the heads are water cooled ) is having hot water available for winter flying. You can easily flying at 0F wearing a sweat shirt.

The gear box is a non issue. It needs to be removed and have the gear tension (backlash) checked every 1-200 hours. Checking the tension created by a series of washers and spring washers. Once you have seen it done it is easy to do.

Factory TBO was 1,200 hours, then raised to 1,500 hours, with hundred of 912s seeing over 2,000 hours with no performance loss or decernable engine parts wear. I suspect in the near future TBO will be raised.... again.

Jabaru engines require 25 hour valve adjustment per owners manual, Rotax valves require no adjusting. Very rare to see a Rotax leak oil, very rare to not see a Jabaru leak oil. Uneven heating & cooling creates oil leaks in #3 & #4 cylinders, count on it. A Jabaru 2200 will leak oil.

Rotax 912s do not like Avgas, neither does your wallet.

Carb balancing is another operation easily performed by the owner and only needed to be checked at annual. A cheap motor cycle mercury carb balancer tool works great.

The Rotax 912 is a highly precision / complex / ultra reliable engine that does not like unqualified people wrenching on it. Many problems are caused by unqualified people attempting ill advised field repairs. On the other hand, once you learn what an owner can do -v- what you should have a qualified mechanic do (rarely needed) these engines are almost bullet proof.

There are more Rotax engines flying around the world than any other piston engine. There is a reason Van's, Cessna, US Military (Preditor, ect.), and LSA manufactures all over the world make Rotax 912 their engine of choice for LSA. Don't fight them, learn from them.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Jabaru engines require 25 hour valve adjustment per owners manual, Rotax valves require no adjusting. Very rare to see a Rotax leak oil, very rare to not see a Jabaru leak oil. Uneven heating & cooling creates oil leaks in #3 & #4 cylinders, count on it. A Jabaru 2200 will leak oil.

There are more Rotax engines flying around the world than any other piston engine. There is a reason Van's, Cessna, US Military (Preditor, ect.), and LSA manufactures all over the world make Rotax 912 their engine of choice for LSA. Don't fight them, learn from them.
Click to expand...

If you're going to bash the Jabiru, please get your facts straight. The Jab 2200 has had hydraulic lifters for several years, and the 3300 for the last year. There are no valve adjustments required. After 450 hours, my 3300 wasn't a leaker.

And if you ask the folks at Van's why they picked the Rotax, they'll tell you it was because they didn't have enough time to do any engine testing.

Tony
 
Tony Spicer said:
If you're going to bash the Jabiru, please get your facts straight. The Jab 2200 has had hydraulic lifters for several years, and the 3300 for the last year. There are no valve adjustments required. After 450 hours, my 3300 wasn't a leaker.
Click to expand...

I'm not bashing Jabiru, each engine has it's faults. As I mentioned in my post I was talking about the Jabiru 2200 leaking oil. I have not seen one that did not leak. The solid lifters are a major problem with "older" (2 years or older) Jabiru engines and builders here need to know about it and don't get sucked into a bad engine decision they will regret. Over heating on the back cylinders is a major problem due to the proximity of the front cylinders, and poor coweling. I have seen a few 2200 Jabirus needing #3 or jug replaced due to burn valve seats, sticking valves also. Power output is not as advertised either, due to over heating of intake air/fuel mixture.

Looking at Jabirus web site it still talks about having to torque the heads at 5 hour intervals until 25 hours, then every 25 hours after that. And it still talks about adjusting valves every 25 hours.

http://www.usjabiru.com/Tech Tips.htm#Head Torque

Currently, I don't own a plane with either engine. Just like anything do your homework and pick an engine that is proven and does not have resale issues. Jabirus have a "less than desirable" reputation in the resale world.

I know for a fact Van's looked at Jabiru engines for the 12 and passed due to reliability / maintenance issues. I'm not bashing anyone, just reporting what I know.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
More Torque is Good

I know the Rotax 912 is a 100hp engine, just like the Continental O-200, and that the Jabaru 3300 is 120hp. The Rotax is the lightest. According to Van, the actual "total" installation weight is around 186lbs. Jabaru says that they nearly match the Rotax for total installation weights. The O-200 is about 60 lbs. heavier, but the new O-200 LS will loose 30 lbs, and have electronic ignition and be fuel injected

Now lets look at torque. The 912 power curve shows the anemic torque of the engine. It only runs from 75 to 95 ft. lbs. The old O-200 produces well over 160 ft lbs of torque, nearly twice that of the 912 and the Jabaru 3300 numbers are even more impressive with a really flat torque curve that ranges from 190 to 200 ft lbs.

Torque is defined as ?A force, causing rotation?. Wow!! That sounds like something that would really be of an advantage in an airplane.

I?m convinced that the 912 is a good engine, but I think that if I could install a power plant that has double the torque and sill be within my weight limitations, I will have to put some real effort into making that happen.

Can?t wait to start my RV-12
 
The flat torque curve of the Jabiru is one of the reasons that I chose it for my bi-plane. Since I plan to derate it to 100hp so I can turn a long prop.
As far as oil leakage, I don't have a lot of experience with the Jabiru, but of all the ones that I have certified for Legend Cub, and Indus Aviation, I haven't seen a problem.
 
todehnal said:
Now lets look at torque. The 912 power curve shows the anemic torque of the engine. It only runs from 75 to 95 ft. lbs. The old O-200 produces well over 160 ft lbs of torque, nearly twice that of the 912 and the Jabaru 3300 numbers are even more impressive with a really flat torque curve that ranges from 190 to 200 ft lbs.
Click to expand...

Do you have a copy or a link of the dyno plots that you could post for review? Is the 75 to 95 ft. lb.s figure before the reduction drive? If it is, that gets multiplied by the reduction ratio to arrive at torque at the prop. Almost as important is the spread, or power band, of the torque curve. I'd be very interested in seeing these.
 
RV6junkie said:
Do you have a copy or a link of the dyno plots that you could post for review? Is the 75 to 95 ft. lb.s figure before the reduction drive? If it is, that gets multiplied by the reduction ratio to arrive at torque at the prop. Almost as important is the spread, or power band, of the torque curve. I'd be very interested in seeing these.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, all the Rotax performance figures are at the engine, not after the reduction drive. The drive ratio is about 2.4:1.
 
todehnal said:
I know the Rotax 912 is a 100hp engine, just like the Continental O-200, and that the Jabaru 3300 is 120hp. The Rotax is the lightest. According to Van, the actual "total" installation weight is around 186lbs. Jabaru says that they nearly match the Rotax for total installation weights. The O-200 is about 60 lbs. heavier, but the new O-200 LS will loose 30 lbs, and have electronic ignition and be fuel injected

Now lets look at torque. The 912 power curve shows the anemic torque of the engine. It only runs from 75 to 95 ft. lbs. The old O-200 produces well over 160 ft lbs of torque, nearly twice that of the 912 and the Jabaru 3300 numbers are even more impressive with a really flat torque curve that ranges from 190 to 200 ft lbs.

Torque is defined as ?A force, causing rotation?. Wow!! That sounds like something that would really be of an advantage in an airplane.

I?m convinced that the 912 is a good engine, but I think that if I could install a power plant that has double the torque and sill be within my weight limitations, I will have to put some real effort into making that happen.

Can?t wait to start my RV-12
Click to expand...

Hp is what moves your plane, not torque. The reduction drive on the Rotax multiplies the torque to the prop. Can't beat the power to weight ratio of geared engines. RPMs don't weigh much.
 
Mel said:
The flat torque curve of the Jabiru is one of the reasons that I chose it for my bi-plane. Since I plan to derate it to 100hp so I can turn a long prop.
As far as oil leakage, I don't have a lot of experience with the Jabiru, but of all the ones that I have certified for Legend Cub, and Indus Aviation, I haven't seen a problem.
Click to expand...

Mel -

You considered opinion is highly valued. If torque was 'one of the reasons' what were the others? Like all things there are numerous trade offs [Rotax does this better, Jab that, Lyc da-other] and being uneducated [and strongly considering an A/C with a 3300 'standard' [and wondering why Van chose the 912]] I'm reading everything I can and seeking every reasoned/experienced opinion I can find with respect to the 912/3300 option.

thanks

John
 
several immediate posts above all indicate the Rotax torque after reduction drive is excellent. I'm a neophyte so my thinking is probably totally fuzzy If all other elements are equal [or near so [e.g., hp, weight, cost, TBO, safety]] and one engine is air cooled & direct drive while the other requires something more [like liquid cooling and or conversion] then wouldn't KISS indicate go w/ the simpler design?

The devil comes in to play when 'valuing' the 'worth/cost' of the differences [which is often just persons' preferences].

Am I off the track here in my thinking?

thanks

John
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
AFAIK, all the Rotax performance figures are at the engine, not after the reduction drive. The drive ratio is about 2.4:1.
Click to expand...

Based on that information, the torque at the prop for the Rotax is 180 to 288. At what RPM, I don't know.

The torque on an engine that makes 100 HP at 2,700 RPM will be 195 ft. lbs. at the HP peak (100 x 5252/2700).

I'd say the the Rotax is not torque challenged as posted by Todehnal above.

Still, I'd like to see the dyno plots. Based on the engine RPM range of the Rotax, I'm interested to see if max Torque starts to fall off before max RPM is reached.
 
RV6junkie said:
Still, I'd like to see the dyno plots. Based on the engine RPM range of the Rotax, I'm interested to see if max Torque starts to fall off before max RPM is reached.
Click to expand...
I pulled a Rotax 912 Operator's Manual out of our technical library, and looked at the power chart. It shows that the hp vs rpm curve flattens out significantly above 5300 rpm. The power (kW) vs rpm at sea level standard day is approximately (accuracy limited by the resolution of the chart):

rpm pwr
3000 28
4000 41.5
5000 54
5300 57.5
5500 58.5
5800 59.5

Multiply those power values by 1.341 to get horsepower.
 
Deuskid said:
Mel -

You considered opinion is highly valued. If torque was 'one of the reasons' what were the others? Like all things there are numerous trade offs [Rotax does this better, Jab that, Lyc da-other] and being uneducated [and strongly considering an A/C with a 3300 'standard' [and wondering why Van chose the 912]] I'm reading everything I can and seeking every reasoned/experienced opinion I can find with respect to the 912/3300 option.

thanks

John
Click to expand...
John,
Of course there are many reasons for my choosing the Jabiru. Flat torque curve, direct drive, single carburetor, air cooled, very simple installation, etc. Also Jabiru gives you an "installed" weight which includes accessories and exhaust system.
I don't particularly care for the Rotax 9XX series engines. I don't like the complexity of the installation (radiators, coolant hoses, external oil tank, etc.) I don't like the lubricating system. It is a dry sump system with no scavenger pump. The oil is returned to the tank by crankcase compression; i.e. "blow-by". I don't like redrives. Now before everybody jumps to the computer, these are my personal likes and dislikes. The Rotax has a good history and I have no problem with other people using them. I have certified many aircraft with them. I even built a Zenair 601 with the 912.
 
Last edited:
todehnal said:
The Rotax is the lightest. According to Van, the actual "total" installation weight is around 186lbs. Jabaru says that they nearly match the Rotax for total installation weights. The O-200 is about 60 lbs. heavier, but the new O-200 LS will loose 30 lbs, and have electronic ignition and be fuel injected
Click to expand...
This matches what Cessna says about their installation of the O-200 - that it is about 35 lbs heavier. However, I wonder about cost? EI/EFI has got to jack the price up.

Be nice to get back to the KISS principle. Light and simple. Aircooled - single carb - solidly reliable - 2000+TBO - less than $15K. That's all I ask for. ;)
 
I'm not a fan of the Rotax 912 oiling system either. While proven reliable, it is cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated in my view not to mention heavier than a wet sump design. However that is how it comes so you are stuck with it.

On the Jabiru front, I think Van's probably looked carefully at these but they have nowhere near the flight hours of the 912 series engines and were still going through design revisions to address head, valve and cooling issues until quite recently. From discussions with people close to Jabiru, it finally appears that they have most of the serious initial problems addressed and the fixes look well thought out.

Rotax also has a much larger dealer/ servicing network worldwide and very detailed service/ overhaul information as a result of their extensive certification processes in many different countries.
 
Phyrcooler said:
This matches what Cessna says about their installation of the O-200 - that it is about 35 lbs heavier. However, I wonder about cost? EI/EFI has got to jack the price up.

Be nice to get back to the KISS principle. Light and simple. Aircooled - single carb - solidly reliable - 2000+TBO - less than $15K. That's all I ask for. ;)
Click to expand...
Why $15K as the limit? If we can mass produce 350 ci GM crate engines for less $2K why not these engines? If the principles behind the engines is so dead on simple, if they are so rock solid and if they haven't changed that much since the stone age, then why not?

Yeah, Yeah, I know. :rolleyes: Before everyone starts flaming me about supply and demand, economies of scale, liability, lawyers and the like I understand those things. I still think it should be possible to sell a new engine that costs less than it costs to buy a car these days. For heavens sake if the technology hasn't changed much we are basically buying the same blasted hunks of metal in the same configuration they were selling 50 + years ago.
 
UL260

There is another condender out. The UL260 by UlPower.
http://www.ulpower.com/
2.6 l, 95 HP, fuel injected and electronic egnition. Weight is about 75 kg total (Rotax 912/912S is at least 82 total). They are also developing a larger engine, 4-4.5 l I think.

The popularity of the Rotax 912 is very much due to the gear, producing large amount of torque to a large slow rotating prop. Another effect of the gear is that you can (and should) use extremely efficient and light carbon blades, adjustable on ground or air. The gear also greatly reduces the forces the bearings in the engine itself has to take.
 
RVbySDI said:
Yeah, Yeah, I know. :rolleyes: Before everyone starts flaming me about supply and demand, economies of scale, liability, lawyers and the like I understand those things. I still think it should be possible to sell a new engine that costs less than it costs to buy a car these days. For heavens sake if the technology hasn't changed much we are basically buying the same blasted hunks of metal in the same configuration they were selling 50 + years ago.
Click to expand...
I'm with you brother. You're preaching to the choir. It is all the reasons you list above that makes what should be a $3,000 engine cost us $15,000 to $20,000. And even if someone could make one for $3,000 - they'd still sell it for just whatever the market will bear. At this point that is about $15K. So a 100hp engine for $13,500 would be considered a bargain.

What we need is some hippy machinist to say screw the man, money is evil, all men should FLY - and start dumping his version of a light O-200 out the door at $3,595. FOB Berkley :D

Any Birkenstock soled, tie-dyed Van'sAirForce shirt wearing machinist out there?? :eek:
 
SvingenB said:
There is another condender out. The UL260 by UlPower.
http://www.ulpower.com/
2.6 l, 95 HP, fuel injected and electronic egnition. Weight is about 75 kg total (Rotax 912/912S is at least 82 total). They are also developing a larger engine, 4-4.5 l I think...<snip>
Click to expand...

Please don't flame me - I'm sincerely trying to understand but if a jabiru costs less [$14,900 v $~16-17,500 after options], more hp [112 hp continuous [120 peak]] and is only 13# more [178 v 165 #] is it the fuel injection that would put the UL260 over the top?

Thanks

John
 
More on Torque

Power curve charts are hard to come by. It is almost as if the manufacturers are keeping that information in house. With some research I was able to come up with the following sources. It is interesting to note that the only one that I found published by the manufacturer was that Jabiru. I think that they are proud of their numbers.

The Jabiru numbers came from the Power Curve chart that is on the 3300A Aero Engine brochure, directly from Jabiru. I picked it up at Sun n Fun this year.

The Rotax numbers came from page 58 of the Lockwood Aviation Supply catalog. Take a look! This chart mentions Power at the Prop. I?m sure that you will agree that it is a rather sad looking torque curve.

The O-0200 numbers came from a web site: http://www.flycorvair.com/thrust.html
They are selling the attributes of corvair power and I would suspect that the O-200 numbers are not inflated.

Hope this helps.
 
Phyrcooler said:
I'm with you brother. You're preaching to the choir. It is all the reasons you list above that makes what should be a $3,000 engine cost us $15,000 to $20,000. And even if someone could make one for $3,000 - they'd still sell it for just whatever the market will bear. At this point that is about $15K. So a 100hp engine for $13,500 would be considered a bargain.

What we need is some hippy machinist to say screw the man, money is evil, all men should FLY - and start dumping his version of a light O-200 out the door at $3,595. FOB Berkley :D

Any Birkenstock soled, tie-dyed Van'sAirForce shirt wearing machinist out there?? :eek:
Click to expand...
I wish I had the skills. I would be sure trying to do it. In fact I have wrestled with the notion of doing this type of thing in aviation somehow. I mean how much money is enough to live on and be happy anyway? Do we always have to have more? Is it really so important that I make more money than you, or you, or the next guy, or the next guy? As long as I make enough to pay for what I want I know I will be happy without making sure I make more and more money. If I work so hard to make all of that money but then cannot do the things I want to with it because I have to spend all of my time at the job that makes that money for me, am I really "getting ahead"? I would be very content to work at something I enjoy like aviation and live a normal middle class life without having to get rich doing it.

Wow! Sorry guys for that rant. :eek:

Anyway, I cannot see why it would not be a practical issue for a GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, or any other number of big name engine manufacturers to see this as a possibility.

Now like I said in my previous post. I know the culprit is all that liability/lawyer/law suit stuff that these manufacturers have to figure into the cost. Such a shame! :( I just think that if they are making profits with the large number of mass produced engines, they should be able to use some of that profit to cover costs in this market. They might open an entirely new revenue string they had not tapped before and grow a new source of profit. Just my thoughts. Please don't flame me for the idea!
 
Mel said:
John,
Of course there are many reasons for my choosing the Jabiru. Flat torque curve, direct drive, single carburetor, air cooled, very simple installation, etc. Also Jabiru gives you an "installed" weight which includes accessories and exhaust system.
I don't particularly care for the Rotax 9XX series engines. I don't like the complexity of the installation (radiators, coolant hoses, external oil tank, etc.) I don't like the lubricating system. It is a dry sump system with no scavenger pump. The oil is returned to the tank by crankcase compression; i.e. "blow-by". I don't like redrives. Now before everybody jumps to the computer, these are my personal likes and dislikes. The Rotax has a good history and I have no problem with other people using them. I have certified many aircraft with them. I even built a Zenair 601 with the 912.
Click to expand...

Thx Mel

:D

John
 
Flying for the masses

The closest thing is probably the little Sonex with it's Aero-Vee 2.0 motor. The Aero-Vee is an 80 hp. build it yourself motor for $5,995. Auto or 100LL fuel - 161 lbs "complete". If they (Sonex) had a quick-build - I'd be tempted to throw one together for fun using this motor.

If they could put together a 100hp engine kit for $7K or $8K they'd probably sell a bunch.

http://www.aeroconversions.com/aero_vee_2002.html
 
Last edited:
Deuskid said:
Please don't flame me - I'm sincerely trying to understand but if a jabiru costs less [$14,900 v $~16-17,500 after options], more hp [112 hp continuous [120 peak]] and is only 13# more [178 v 165 #] is it the fuel injection that would put the UL260 over the top?

Thanks

John
Click to expand...
The price of a Jabiru 3300 is actually US$15.900 as of today or yesterday. That is a basic engine with no options (oil cooler, exaust etc).
 
Unless they have changed recently, the exhaust system does come with the Jabiru 3300. Their current website states that the standard engine includes starter, alternator, exhaust system, oil cooler, cooling shrouds, regulator, and starter solenoid.
 
Last edited:
todehnal said:
Power curve charts are hard to come by. It is almost as if the manufacturers are keeping that information in house. With some research I was able to come up with the following sources. It is interesting to note that the only one that I found published by the manufacturer was that Jabiru. I think that they are proud of their numbers.

The Jabiru numbers came from the Power Curve chart that is on the 3300A Aero Engine brochure, directly from Jabiru. I picked it up at Sun n Fun this year.

The Rotax numbers came from page 58 of the Lockwood Aviation Supply catalog. Take a look! This chart mentions Power at the Prop. I?m sure that you will agree that it is a rather sad looking torque curve.
Click to expand...

The Rotax 912S is a 1352cc engine, you cannot expect it to produce the same torque at the crankshaft as a 2200 or 3300cc engine. This is why it is geared and turns about double the RPM as a Jabiru.
 
SvingenB said:
The price of a Jabiru 3300 is actually US$15.900 as of today or yesterday. That is a basic engine with no options (oil cooler, exaust etc).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm contemplating building a lightning [or a -9A] and today found the price I cited here:

http://www.arionaircraft.com/Pricing.html

I guess they haven't updated it yet.

With a -9A quickbuild at > 27.4k and Lightning at 33.9k [I'd want to do an Emp. workshop which would add maybe $3k? [of course the Lightning full quick build is ~$6k [but your done in a few months not a few years]] there is much to consider about what is worth what to me.

If the 3300 is a total dog then that'd be a BIG negative vis a vis the Lightning.

If the 3300 is viable It really is a time [and technique] vs. build cost decision at the same fuel burn.

thanks,

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top