Rotax vs. Jabiru

As I continue to research, the Zodiac XL and the Sonex are on the short
list. Both offer a couple of engine options including Rotax 912
(variations) and the Jabiru 3300. Real-world performance doesn't seem
like it would be that much different, at least on paper.

I hope this isn't a religious issue. I'm interested in opinions on both
the Rotax and Jabiru options.

TIA.

Cal Vanize wrote:


As I continue to research, the Zodiac XL and the Sonex are on the short
list. Both offer a couple of engine options including Rotax 912
(variations) and the Jabiru 3300. Real-world performance doesn't seem
like it would be that much different, at least on paper.

I hope this isn't a religious issue. I'm interested in opinions on both
the Rotax and Jabiru options.

TIA.


Or if I opt for a Zodiac XL, would it be better to use a Conti O-200?

"Cal Vanize" wrote

Or if I opt for a Zodiac XL, would it be better to use a Conti O-200?


I think it pushes it above the weight for LSA designation. Check on that.
--
Jim in NC

"Cal Vanize" wrote

I hope this isn't a religious issue. I'm interested in opinions on both
the Rotax and Jabiru options.

More people are badmouthing Jubiru, than are badmouthing the Rotax 4
strokes.

YMMV.
--
Jim in NC

I've only got 120 trouble free hours on my 912ULS, so I'm no first hand
expert, but, the 912 was recently changed from TBO of 1200 hours to
1500. That seems like a fairly good endorsement for reasonablely good
field experience.
tom

wrote:
I've only got 120 trouble free hours on my 912ULS, so I'm no first hand
expert, but, the 912 was recently changed from TBO of 1200 hours to
1500. That seems like a fairly good endorsement for reasonablely good
field experience.
tom

For the best first hand info check the clasifieds in Australia and see
the story

Jabiru 3300 6 cyl. Engine 125 hrs, core engine and all accessories, no
top end. $3000 Ph 02 9688 2011or 0417 218 299


Jabiru 2200, Factory rebuilt 1999. Only 46hrs engine (total airframe
hours 164).


Aircraft for Sale Jabiru, factory built TT 1150 hrs, Engine TT 150hrs, Long


JABIRU 2.2Lt 55-0735 factory built, TT 750 hrs, Engine 150 hrs. Latest
Head Mod. Spats,


JABIRU 2.2 Factory Built, 55-936, LAME Condition Report 24/3/05, latest
2.2, oil cooler kit Engine TT 392, airframe TT 1072


Jabiru LSA 55-0727. Just love the rego! Approx 1100 airframe and 220 on
latest 2.2 engine.


JABIRU, factory built, 2.2engine and propellor 170 hrs, airframe 1034hrs,


This tells you that at best you will get 300 to 1000 hours from an
engine designed and promoted as 2000 hr tbo END OF STORY

Cal Vanize wrote in
:


As I continue to research, the Zodiac XL and the Sonex are on the
short list. Both offer a couple of engine options including Rotax 912
(variations) and the Jabiru 3300. Real-world performance doesn't seem
like it would be that much different, at least on paper.

I hope this isn't a religious issue. I'm interested in opinions on
both the Rotax and Jabiru options.

TIA.



Sonex does not offer support or FWF for the Rotex,... Just the Jabiru
(120 or 80hp) or Sonex' own "AeroVee" 80HP Volkswagan-based engine.
There are also several flying with GP VW conversions, and a couple with
a corvair (over the recomended FWF wieght though)

Both the Sonex and Zodiac are terrific planes with simular construction
methods. The Sonex is smaller both outside and in the cockpit, but
faster. The Sonex is at LEAST as fast as the factory claims (cruise
about 140-150 on 80hp, and 150-165 w/ jab 3300 (mph) yes they both meet
LSA limits since "max continuous power @ sea level is still under 138))
the Zodiac has never lived up to the factory speed claims (just ask or
read history on the Matronics list for confirmation). That doesn't make
the 601xl a bad plane, far from it... Just something else to throw into
the mix while considering.

If you havent already, join the yahoo SonexTalk list (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sonextalk/ ) and the Zodiac list on
Matronics (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator/?Zenith-List).

I chose the Sonex, mostly because of speed and the fact that I am
building from scratch, and the full size planse from Sonex are much more
detailed & sutable for scratch building. If I was building from a kit,
I might still be scratching my head....






--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Morgans wrote:


"Cal Vanize" wrote

Or if I opt for a Zodiac XL, would it be better to use a Conti O-200?


I think it pushes it above the weight for LSA designation. Check on that.
Jim
I'm not sure if your talking about the 'built' version or E/AB version.
If it's the experimental version you can set the gross weight where you
like. Just limit it to the LSA requirement and your good to go. You will
lose some useful load which you can trade off with smaller tanks and less
range if you need the weight.
John

("UltraJohn" wrote)
I'm not sure if your talking about the 'built' version or E/AB version.
If it's the experimental version you can set the gross weight where you
like. Just limit it to the LSA requirement and your good to go. You will
lose some useful load which you can trade off with smaller tanks and less
range if you need the weight.


Could you ex"pound" on this - set the gross weight where you like?

Thanks


Mont ....blue, yeah, that's it - Montblue

"Montblack" wrote in
:

("UltraJohn" wrote)
I'm not sure if your talking about the 'built' version or E/AB
version. If it's the experimental version you can set the gross
weight where you like. Just limit it to the LSA requirement and your
good to go. You will lose some useful load which you can trade off
with smaller tanks and less range if you need the weight.


Could you ex"pound" on this - set the gross weight where you like?

Thanks


Mont ....blue, yeah, that's it - Montblue



As the builder/manufacturer of an ambuilt-experimental you can
absolutely set the max gross weight anywhere you like... Who is to tell
you that a kit that others have built and set at, say 1450lbs is
mandatory for you to do the same.... Of course, a ramp check when you
and your 200lb friend climb out and pull out pull out 200Lbs of camping
gear that's 150lbs over your gross weight will be a problem....

S-LSA and kit E-LSA are regulated as to the min usefull load to combat
just this issue... but ambuilt expermimental is not.
--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams