If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
("ET" wrote)
S-LSA and kit E-LSA are regulated as to the min usefull load to combat just this issue... but ambuilt expermimental is not. Can a SP built, then fly an ambuilt experimental? I declare it to be .......1,320 max gross? I declare it to fly ...138 mph continuous max power, etc. I declare it to have a stall speed of... Montblack |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
"Montblack" wrote in
: ("ET" wrote) S-LSA and kit E-LSA are regulated as to the min usefull load to combat just this issue... but ambuilt expermimental is not. Can a SP built, then fly an ambuilt experimental? I declare it to be ......1,320 max gross? I declare it to fly ...138 mph continuous max power, etc. I declare it to have a stall speed of... Montblack Simple answer, yes.... You don't "declare" it, per-se, but durring your phase one testing you establish these numbers and enter them in your POH for phase II flying. If your off a little... probably no problem.. if your "off" alot.. probably no good will come of it..... -- -- ET :-) "A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."---- Douglas Adams |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
"News" wrote For the best first hand info check the clasifieds in Australia and see the story The Rotax 912 has had about 10 years head start on the Jabiru to achieve reliability. It had its share of gremlins in the beginning (ignition box, stator assembly, rocker arms) but AFAIK nowadays they are quite reliable. I'd recommend the gearbox slipper clutch option, as it removes the need for a teardown after a propstrike. I understand Jabiru has been working hard to fix the bugs they too had in the earlier engines, but have no closer experience. I would also think things get better as the experience grows how to install and operate the engine. Might be a good idea to research how the newer engines perform. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
Montblack wrote:
("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 Yes Montred (hey if you can do it I can) ;-) You can set the gross weight for E/AB where you like. You might/should have some documentation as to what the pane can actually maxout but you certainly can set it lower for safety sake. The speeds are another story. You can't easily 'set' the max continous etc etc but you could put an electronic (or otherwise) limiter on the engine to keep the speed within limits and/or adjust the prop pitch/diameter to limit airplane (or prop/engine) speed. Now if you have a 250 kt plane it might be difficult to limit it! My plane which I'm slowly (very slowly) working on original specs are 180 mph cruise (yeah right) realistic most cruise at 140-150 so proping it down with a climb prop takes care of it easily the problem is stall speed mines about 3 mph high so I need mods to lower the stall down. The whole point is E/AB has a lot of leeway! Also the AMD CH601XL is SLSA (the one Jim Pellien is selling is ELSA)and it has a Cont O-200 they lost 70lb useful load because of the engine weight but it still has the 1320lb gross. John Sorry for the rambling post! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
"UltraJohn" wrote Also the AMD CH601XL is SLSA (the one Jim Pellien is selling is ELSA)and it has a Cont O-200 they lost 70lb useful load because of the engine weight but it still has the 1320lb gross. What is the useful load expected to finish out at? -- Jim in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
Nils Rostedt wrote:
snip I understand Jabiru has been working hard to fix the bugs they too had in the earlier engines, but have no closer experience. I would also think things get better as the experience grows how to install and operate the engine. Might be a good idea to research how the newer engines perform. Have looked at this issue fairly closely (before ordering a J160). Verbally - the maintenance/failure issues have essentially ceased in the past couple of years. This is from school operators as well as private owners. Records - Comparing the incident/accident records in the last couple of years show a much lower rate of engine problems compared to say 5 years ago. This is with a lot more jabs around. It seems with a/c engines as with everything else they can be tested thoroughly in extreme ways and come up shining. Once they are put in the hand of the great unwashed anything can and does happen. -- regards jc LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or sanity of the author is not guaranteed EMAIL - and are not valid email addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
G'day
I live in Australia where that jabiru engines are manufactured, and I went through the same dilemma regarding the choice of a 912 or a Jabiru engine for my Murphy Rebel. At our airfield there are maybe 30 Jabiru engines in service and there has been a continual litany of broken valves, leaking head gaskets, faulty ignition coils, rings sticking and bores glazing (etc), And that does not include the tedious valve adjustments! To be fair, the factory seems to seem to have got their new engines sorted, but I always feel that they are doing field tests by using their customers as guinea pigs! What swung me to the 100hp Rotax was that it is a well sorted engine with a reliable history. There are a number of these in service here that have 3000+ hours on them. That was good enough for me. One downside to the Rotax is the maze of hoses needed to connect the cooling system, but you can't have everything. I would strongly recommend that anyone who is contemplating using a Rotax is to get the slipper clutch option. I recently fitted on to my engine and the difference it made to the smoothness of the engine was truly amazing. regards Ian The Rotax 912 has had about 10 years head start on the Jabiru to achieve reliability. It had its share of gremlins in the beginning (ignition box, stator assembly, rocker arms) but AFAIK nowadays they are quite reliable. I'd recommend the gearbox slipper clutch option, as it removes the need for a teardown after a propstrike. I understand Jabiru has been working hard to fix the bugs they too had in the earlier engines, but have no closer experience. I would also think things get better as the experience grows how to install and operate the engine. Might be a good idea to research how the newer engines perform. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
Another data point for Rotax engines comes from the fact that the air
force uses them in some of the drones vehicles. Google UAV and Rotax. Draw your own conclusion on whether USAF endorsement is good or bad. tom |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
On 13 Jan 2006 16:32:35 -0800, " wrote:
Another data point for Rotax engines comes from the fact that the air force uses them in some of the drones vehicles. Google UAV and Rotax. Draw your own conclusion on whether USAF endorsement is good or bad. Not necessarily a powerful endorsement. The engines have full-time, professional maintenance technicians and are cheap enough that the government could replace them after a few flights. There's a lot of difference between a few dozen hours on an unmanned vehicle on a military maintenance schedule vs. thousands of hours on a non-professionally-maintained aircraft with a pilot aboard. Ron Wanttaja |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Rotax vs. Jabiru
"Richard Riley" wrote It had an engine that I thought - at first glance - would make a terrific Ultralight engine. 4 stroke, about 50 lbs and 50 HP. Then I found out that it had a TBO of 55 hours. If it ran at 35 or 40 HP, what would the TBO be? If it were 200 hours, it still might be a good ultralight engine. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engine sound of Rotax 912 | JK | Home Built | 12 | May 22nd 05 02:47 PM |
ROTAX 275 questions | Eric Greenwell | Soaring | 0 | January 6th 05 02:43 AM |
Jabiru and Rotax engines | Marco Rispoli | Home Built | 14 | July 16th 04 07:23 AM |
RV-9A's wing with Rotax 914? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 26 | March 7th 04 08:56 PM |
Jabiru V Rotax reliability? | Joe | Home Built | 11 | September 5th 03 11:09 AM |