Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

engine selection
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

av8rps

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 33
Location: Central Wisconsin

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: engine selection

[quote="Lynn Matteson"Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might have suffered a prop strike, and might have a bent crank..)



Steve,



That 912 gearbox (you know, the one the Jab flyers leave at home  ) will save a crankshaft from damage.  But of course the gearbox could have suffered damage if it was a hard hit.  So you probably need to learn more about the details of the crash if you want to make a better assessment of the engines condition.  Zero timing it might be a good idea, but unless it really took a hard hit, or has tons of hours on it, you probably will just need a reputable shop to check it over and give it a blessing.  There are some 912s out there now that have been torn down with 2500+ hours on them and needed almost nothing.  

For anyone concerned about all the 912 bulletins;   I know some of the non-912 owners like to make note about all of Rotaxes service bulletins/AD's on the 912s, as if the engines have countless problems.  But that's not the case.  After 29 years in the auto industry, I learned a long time ago its the companies that never produce service bulletins or recalls that have the products you should be suspect of.  No one builds a perfect, problem free product.  Big companies tend to have systems and procedures (or whole divisions) in place to make sure as they learn about problems, they work to solve them and then inform their customers, in the case it may affect them.  Small companies are usually too small to be quite so organized, or have the number of products in service to provide a good database of problems, so the customer doesn't usually hear anything unless they have catastrophic failures that can't be ignored.  Rotax/bombardier certainly qualifies as a large aircraft engine mfr, not to mention also has certified aircraft engines in service around the world.  Therefore they have a good system in place to alert their customers of any issues that might concern them.  Besides my 912, I also have a Lycoming 0-360 in an airplane.  While the 0-360 Lyc is pretty much proven to be one of the most bulletproof aircraft engines in history, over the years I have received piles of bulletins and AD's for it.  Fortunately, just like the Rotax info, most is not anything I have to do anything about.   But it's nice stuff to know about my engine(s).  It's worked to keep my 44 year old Lycoming running safely and reliably all these years, so I believe having that knowledge on my 912 is likely to provide a similar level of service from my Rotax engine.     



Oh yeah, I agree with Clint.  So if you decide not to buy it let me know,  I will 



Paul Seehafer

_________________
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer Sn#1 and Sn#26
Highlander 912s taildragger
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net

shinco(at)bright.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: engine selection

Lynn Matteson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might have suffered 

 a prop strike, and might have a bent crank...a couple of MIGHT's here 

 is all.



 Lynn Matteson

 Grass Lake, Michigan

 Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

 flying w/460+ hrs

 do not archive

 On Jan 12, 2008, at 8:42 PM, av8rps wrote:



> 

>

> (Steve Shinabery wrote; been looking at the Jab 2200..BUT now I found 

> a 100 hp.,rotax that is out of a KF in texas. I can buy the engine 

> with every thing with it..for $4000.00..)

>

> Steve,

>

> Don't waste any time making up your mind on that one.  That will not 

> be easy to find again...

>

> I believe the first Kitfox to have a 912 was a model 2.  So I can't 

> see any reason yours wouldn't accept the engine.  Only thing I have 

> to tell you is, you had better HANG ON the first time you crack that 

> throttle!  A 100 hp 912 on a model 2 is going to be a real 

> rocketship!!!  If you work at it, you could end up with a 575 lb 

> airplane.  That'll give you a 5.75 lbs per hp power loading (e.w.).  

> That's almost 30% better than a new kitfox with a 914.  So as I said, 

> you'll have a real rocketship!  Oh yeah, having the undercambered, 

> high lift wing, you should have one awesome short field, climbing 

> monster as well!  But you will have to learn to keep a close eye on 

> your VNE and maneuvering speeds, as you'll most likely blow by them 

> so quickly it will scare you...

>

> But oh, what great fun all that sounds like!!!!!

>

> Paul Seehafer

>

> --------

> Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

> Avid Flyer

> Lake Amphibian

> Central Wisconsin

> paul676(at)tds.net

>

>

> Read this topic online here:

>

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157733#157733

>

>



Thanks for your input Lynn,,Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2

shinco(at)bright.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: engine selection

av8rps wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 [quote="Lynn Matteson"Be cautious of any engine that flipped, Steve. It might have suffered a prop strike, and might have a bent crank..)



 Steve,



 That 912 gearbox (you know, the one the Jab flyers leave at home  ) will save a crankshaft from damage.  But of course the gearbox could have suffered damage if it was a hard hit.  So you probably need to learn more about the details of the crash if you want to make a better assessment of the engines condition.  Zero timing it might be a good idea, but unless it really took a hard hit, or has tons of hours on it, you probably will just need a reputable shop to check it over and give it a blessing.  There are some 912s out there now that have been torn down with 2500+ hours on them and needed almost nothing.  

 For anyone concerned about all the 912 bulletins;   I know some of the non-912 owners like to make note about all of Rotaxes service bulletins/AD's on the 912s, as if the engines have countless problems.  But that's not the case.  After 29 years in the auto industry, I learned a long time ago its the companies that never produce service bulletins or recalls that have the products you should be suspect of.  No one builds a perfect, problem free product.  Big companies tend to have systems and procedures (or whole divisions) in place to make sure as they learn about problems, they work to solve them and then inform their customers, in the case it may affect them.  Small companies are usually too small to be quite so organized, or have the number of products in service to provide a good database of problems, so the customer doesn't usually hear anything unless they have catastrophic failures that can't be ignored.  Rotax/bombardier certainly qualifies as a large aircraft engine!

   mfr, not to mention also has certified aircraft engines in service around the world.  Therefore they have a good system in place to alert their customers of any issues that might concern them.  Besides my 912, I also have a Lycoming 0-360 in an airplane.  While the 0-360 Lyc is pretty much proven to be one of the most bulletproof aircraft engines in history, over the years I have received piles of bulletins and AD's for it.  Fortunately, just like the Rotax info, most is not anything I have to do anything about.   But it's nice stuff to know about my engine(s).  It's worked to keep my 44 year old Lycoming running safely and reliably all these years, so I believe having that knowledge on my 912 is likely to provide a similar level of service from my Rotax engine.     



 Oh yeah, I agree with Clint.  So if you decide not to buy it let me know,  I will 



 Paul Seehafer



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 Central Wisconsin

 paul676(at)tds.net





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157761#157761





   

Thank You again Paul.every one has been a good help and support here for 
	


me..and Thanks to all...Steve Shinabery N554KF KF2  + the little 582 

that could

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: engine selection

On Jan 13, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Noel Loveys wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Did you install a pressure cowl to direct cold air down through the 

 cooling

 fins?


	


I did as much as I can what is done on the Jabiru aircraft, Noel. I use 

the Jabiru ram-air ducts with the in-built deflectors. I measured the 

openings for the two ducts and the oil cooler from a Jabiru aircraft 

then moulded from my own cowling, something that matches exactly that. 

I made the opening under the firewall with a 'lip' so that it would 

create a low pressure and suck the air through the cowling. As a 

result, I never have cylinder temperature problem.

But one must also remember that a propeller is a part of the propulsion 

unit. For example, I read that some propeller are good, but not good 

for an air-cooled engine because there is not enough pitch at the root 

of the blade.

My Scandinavian Jabiru dealer buys both engines and aircraft that he 

ships from Australia in containers. He has built many Jabiru aircraft 

and I did the right thing: Follow his instructions by the letter. Then, 

when the engine was installed, I flew my Kitfox to the other side of 

Norway, where he lives, and showed it the engine. Apart from a couple 

of small details, he said: "Good job, lad!"



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: engine selection

And just to keep the truth available to the public, Jabiru is NOT the  

best company in the world to alert the buyer about potential  

problems. They don't have an alert system in place to do that, but us  

buyers are hoping they will someday. The info is out there, but the  

owner has to go looking for it. You'd think that every buyer of one  

of their engines would be on a mailing list, or at least a list in  

the dealer's possession, but apparently they don't work that way...yet.



Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs

do not archive

On Jan 12, 2008, at 11:31 PM, av8rps wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   No one builds a perfect, problem free product.  Big companies tend  

 to have systems and procedures (or whole divisions) in place to  

 make sure as they learn about problems, they work to solve them and  

 then inform their customers, in the case it may affect them.  Small  

 companies are usually too small to be quite so organized, or have  

 the number of products in service to provide a good database of  

 problems, so the customer doesn't usually hear anything unless they  

 have catastrophic failures that can't be ignored.  Rotax/bombardier  

 certainly qualifies as a large aircraft engine!

   mfr, not to mention also has certified aircraft engines in  

 service around the world.  Therefore they have a good system in  

 place to alert their customers of any issues that might concern them.



 Paul Seehafer



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 Central Wisconsin

 paul676(at)tds.net





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157761#157761

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

occom

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 404

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: engine selection

Hi Lynn, it could be worse. The Jabiru dealers here in Canada are so 

unresponsive, I wondered if they had gone out of business on the Jabiru 

list. All I wanted was a little information. They awoke from their coma long 

enough to call me a liar on the Jabiru list and promply went back to sleep. 

I cannot get any response from them at all. I've resolved to not worry about 

the engine for now but I won't spend money with these guys at all. There are 

a lot of enines out there, Rotax is the safest bet at this time.



Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582

do not archive

---

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: engine selection

I've only had two issues with my engine, and resolved both by myself.  

I mentioned both issues to all three dealers in the United States,  

and none had heard of the problems I had. At the time I had gone over  

the 200 hr warranty/guarantee so I wasn't even looking for their  

help. I did however, have a muffler fail, (within the 200) that was  

my own fault for modifying it and not physically supporting the  

modification, and they backed that mistake. So other than not having  

a direct pipeline from the company to the owner, my dealer has stood  

by my engine. I subscribed to the Rotax Service Bulletin...or  

whatever it's called...just to see how they handle their customer  

notification system, and I've got to say, it's pretty impressive.  

Given the length of time they've been cranking out the motors, Rotax  

should be the leader in customer satisfaction. Now if J can copy R's  

information pipeline, a whole lot of J owners will be a lot happier

Of course I can't let this opportunity pass:

Maybe J doesn't feel like they need to work on their customer  

satisfaction problem, because the customers are already satisfied  

just owning a J...not buying that? I didn't think so, but in these  

current times of political BS, I thought I might try to fly that  

one. : )

Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200 (pretty well satisfied owner)

flying w/460+ hrs

On Jan 13, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Dave G. wrote:



[quote] 



 Hi Lynn, it could be worse. The Jabiru dealers here in Canada are  

 so unresponsive, I wondered if they had gone out of business on the  

 Jabiru list. All I wanted was a little information. They awoke from  

 their coma long enough to call me a liar on the Jabiru list and  

 promply went back to sleep. I cannot get any response from them at  

 all. I've resolved to not worry about the engine for now but I  

 won't spend money with these guys at all. There are a lot of enines  

 out there, Rotax is the safest bet at this time.



 Dave Goddard- Mod IV 1050/582

 do not archive

 ---

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Michel

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 966
Location: Norway

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:38 am Post subject: engine selection

On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Lynn Matteson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Now if J can copy R's information pipeline, a whole lot of J owners 

 will be a lot happier


	


I agree that Jabiru has a lot to learn from Rotax when it comes to 

customer support. This being said, I could be because - as opposed to 

Rotax - Jabiru makes engines to primarily power their aircraft. Maybe 

they provide better customer support to those who buy Jabiru aircraft, 

I don't know.

I can also add that while I was pleased with the engine, I think they 

could improve their user manual. It looks like a PDF document where 

different engineers have individually added different notes ... which 

is probably how it went.

I think that Jabiru leaves entirely customer support to the national 

dealers. Then it's a matter of meeting the 'nice and friendly dealer.' 

I met mine. He even calls me by phone now and then, to enquire how 

things are going. When somebody writes something on the Jabiru list, he 

writes to me, in Norwegian, giving me his version of the problem. So, I 

am quite please with my dealer but I understand that not everyone has 

the same experience. Ah well, I am the lucky guy, I know! 



Cheers,

Michel Verheughe

Norway

Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

_________________
Kitfox 3 - Jabiru 2200

av8rps

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 33
Location: Central Wisconsin

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: engine selection

("Lynn Matteson says "Of course I can't let this opportunity pass:

Maybe J doesn't feel like they need to work on their customer  

satisfaction problem, because the customers are already satisfied  

just owning a J...not buying that? I didn't think so....)



Lynn,



Yeah, you're right.  I dont' buy that   But I want to say thanks for giving all of us a heads-up on the realities of owning and operating a Jabiru.  Personally I hope they can continue to improve their support, as there is definitely a place for their engines in the light sport aircraft world.  And frankly, I think it is a nice engine.  There aren't a lot of jabiru owners yet, but of the ones I've heard from (like yourself) they are quite happy with their engines.  That says a lot for a relatively new product.  And as Iv'e said before, I like the simplicity of the Jab much more than all those hoses and such the 912 has.   

One thing that has somewhat surprised me however about the Jab, is while the engine is advertised to be much lighter than the 912, empty weights aren't necessarily in agreement with that.  As an example, my Model IV-1200 long wing was originally 627 pounds empty (currently closer to 650 due to add ons) with my 912ul, IVO inflight prop, electric engine heater, all plexiglass windshield, turtledeck and bubble doors, full panel, carpet, heater core type cabin heat with an electric fan, heavy 4 ply 8:00 X 6 aircraft tires, heavy paint, heavy plastic strut fairings for wings and horizontal stab, electric trim, wingtip strobes, landing and nav lights, dual brakes, 2 built in Gps's, solid baggage floor, electronic dual tank senders with sender covers glassed into top of wing tanks, etc, etc.  



As I recall, your Jabiru 2200 model IV is a very similar weight? So how does it compare option wise?  Comparing our similar model IV Kitfoxes is the best way to compare apples to apples for the group. 



Paul Seehafer



Ps - here's a shot of my panel so you can compare it to yours for equipment

PICT0375-2.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

332.68 KB

Viewed:

1341 Time(s)

_________________
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer Sn#1 and Sn#26
Highlander 912s taildragger
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: engine selection

Paul-

Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in, and I've probably added another  

20 with x-ponder, different radio, heat muffs, scat hose, etc. I'll  

compare what my plane has and try to list what might be different. If  

I skip an item, it means I have about the same thing.

Short wing, fixed-pitch prop, (no on-board engine heater), semi-full  

panel, but mostly VFR, (no "weighty" heater other than heat muffs and  

scat hose) wheel pants, same plastic strut fairings w/fabric and  

paint, (no fairings on hort. stab), (no landing lights), one GPS,  

baggage sack, (no electronic senders for fuel, just sight gauges). I  

do have an airfoiled vertical stab and rudder, my own rib design and  

rudder fairing...possibly heavy, and I have the 3-leaf tailwheel  

spring, but with a Homebuilders Special (ACS) wheel. I just compared  

my panel with yours, and they are nearly comparable. I have an EIS,  

and you have more gauges, etc. I have the Grove gear.



As I write this, I can't help but think that the best way to compare  

weights of these engines is to put the engines on the same scales and  

get the apples and oranges out of the equation. After all, were your  

aircraft scales and the ones that were used to weigh my plane the  

same calibration?(mine were digital, rented from a local FBO repair  

station) Hard to say, and as long as there is this competition among  

engine suppliers, there will always be that little bit of commercial  

"cheating" going on among the merchants.



I recall a Norman Rockwell painting that showed a butcher pushing  

down on the scales, while the customer was pushing up? I'd like to  

see a modern day drawing/picture of a Jabiru and a Rotax on the  

balance scales, and see all the shenanigans that would go on behind  

the scenes. : )



Seriously, I would like to see an honest weighing using all the stuff  

that is needed to get the respective engines installed, i.e.,  

mufflers, airducts, air boxes, starters, radiators, coolant, etc.  

EVERYTHING that is required to make the engine run in the plane.

Why doesn't some enterprising magazine such as we subscribe to, do  

this? Loss of advertising dollars from the losers is the probable  

answer, but then, I'm a skeptic by nature. : )



Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs



On Jan 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, av8rps wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 ("Lynn Matteson says "Of course I can't let this opportunity pass:

 Maybe J doesn't feel like they need to work on their customer

 satisfaction problem, because the customers are already satisfied

 just owning a J...not buying that? I didn't think so....)



 Lynn,



 Yeah, you're right.  I dont' buy that   But I want to say thanks  

 for giving all of us a heads-up on the realities of owning and  

 operating a Jabiru.  Personally I hope they can continue to improve  

 their support, as there is definitely a place for their engines in  

 the light sport aircraft world.  And frankly, I think it is a nice  

 engine.  There aren't a lot of jabiru owners yet, but of the ones  

 I've heard from (like yourself) they are quite happy with their  

 engines.  That says a lot for a relatively new product.  And as  

 Iv'e said before, I like the simplicity of the Jab much more than  

 all those hoses and such the 912 has.

 One thing that has somewhat surprised me however about the Jab, is  

 while the engine is advertised to be much lighter than the 912,  

 empty weights aren't necessarily in agreement with that.  As an  

 example, my Model IV-1200 long wing was originally 627 pounds empty  

 (currently closer to 650 due to add ons) with my 912ul, IVO  

 inflight prop, electric engine heater, all plexiglass windshield,  

 turtledeck and bubble doors, full panel, carpet, heater core type  

 cabin heat with an electric fan, heavy 4 ply 8:00 X 6 aircraft  

 tires, heavy paint, heavy plastic strut fairings for wings and  

 horizontal stab, electric trim, wingtip strobes, landing and nav  

 lights, dual brakes, 2 built in Gps's, solid baggage floor,  

 electronic dual tank senders with sender covers glassed into top of  

 wing tanks, etc, etc.



 As I recall, your Jabiru 2200 model IV is a very similar weight? So  

 how does it compare option wise?  Comparing our similar model IV  

 Kitfoxes is the best way to compare apples to apples for the group.



 Paul Seehafer



 Ps - here's a shot of my panel so you can compare it to yours for  

 equipment



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 Central Wisconsin

 paul676(at)tds.net





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157858#157858





 Attachments:



 http://forums.matronics.com//files/pict0375_2_661.jpg

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

av8rps

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 33
Location: Central Wisconsin

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: engine selection

(Lynn Matteson wrote "]Paul- Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in, and I've probably added another 20 with x-ponder, different radio, heat muffs, scat hose, etc....)



Lynn,



This is interesting information.  Looks like our Model IV kitfoxes are a lot the same, even though they vary by options.  We each have things that are heavier than the others plane, but also have things that are lighter.  So all in all it seems to pretty well balance out.  Not scientific, but generally it goes to prove there isn't a substantial difference between the Jab and the Rotax by the time the airplane is done   



I weighed my plane three times, twice on wheels, and once when when putting it on the floats.  I only used electronic scales when doing the float W&B, but the numbers jived pretty well with what the other scales told us.  So I believe my numbers are relatively accurate.  My empty weight numbers also are pretty average when comparing to other 912 Model IV's, which run between 625 and 675 lbs typically.  



I agree weighing engines as you described would be best.  But really, average numbers for the various models will give the group here a good feel for what they can expect for average weights.    



I've learned a long time ago that even though the specs say one thing, by the time you get the airplane done, it can be all different.  A good example of that is my buddy that built an Avid Mark IV with a 618 rotax a few years back.  After flying it a couple of years he replaced the 618 with a 912 ul, and his net empty weight gain was only 12 pounds.  We all tried to figure out how that could be, but in the end gave up trying to figure out how that was possible.  He's too busy flying the airplane now to worry about it.  But it still mystifies all of us, including him.



I hope the group can further this study of various models with various engine weights.  That could be really useful information for any of us.



Paul Seehafer

_________________
Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib
Avid Flyer Sn#1 and Sn#26
Highlander 912s taildragger
Lake Amphibian
Central Wisconsin
paul676@tds.net

KITFOXZ(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: engine selection

In keeping my final engine decision open until I absolutely need to make  it, I found this spreadsheet very interesting to see all values on a single  page.  I took the liberty of massaging it a bit into a format I am  liking.  All of you guys who have info for the blanks yet to be filled,  please spit your numbers out.

  

 John P.  Marzluf (John Z.)

Columbus, Ohio

Series V Outback (Out Back In The  Garage)

20% Complete, Not Currently Building

Do Not Archive

  

  

  In a message dated 1/13/2008 6:17:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson    <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



Paul-

Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in,    and I've probably added another  

20 with x-ponder, different radio,    heat muffs, scat hose, etc. I'll  

compare what my plane has and try    to list what might be different. If  

I skip an item, it means I have    about the same thing.

Short wing, fixed-pitch prop, (no on-board engine    heater), semi-full  

panel, but mostly VFR, (no "weighty" heater other    than heat muffs and  

scat hose) wheel pants, same plastic strut    fairings w/fabric and  

paint, (no fairings on hort. stab), (no    landing lights), one GPS,  

baggage sack, (no electronic senders for    fuel, just sight gauges). I  

do have an airfoiled vertical stab and    rudder, my own rib design and  

rudder fairing...possibly heavy, and I    have the 3-leaf tailwheel  

spring, but with a Homebuilders Special    (ACS) wheel. I just compared  

my panel with yours, and they are    nearly comparable. I have an EIS,  

and you have more gauges, etc. I    have the Grove gear.



As I write this, I can't help but think that the    best way to compare  

weights of these engines is to put the engines    on the same scales and  

get the apples and oranges out of the    equation. After all, were your  

aircraft scales and the ones that    were used to weigh my plane the  

same calibration?(mine were digital,    rented from a local FBO repair  

station) Hard to say, and as long as    there is this competition among  

engine suppliers, there will always    be that little bit of commercial  

"cheating" going on among the    merchants.



I recall a Norman Rockwell painting that showed a butcher    pushing  

down on the scales, while the customer was pushing up? I'd    like to  

see a modern day drawing/picture of a Jabiru and a Rotax on    the  

balance scales, and see all the shenanigans that would go on    behind  

the scenes. : )



Seriously, I would like to see an    honest weighing using all the stuff  

that is needed to get the    respective engines installed, i.e.,  

mufflers, airducts, air boxes,    starters, radiators, coolant, etc.  

EVERYTHING that is required to    make the engine run in the plane.

Why doesn't some enterprising magazine    such as we subscribe to, do  

this? Loss of advertising dollars from    the losers is the probable  

answer, but then, I'm a skeptic by    nature. : )



Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV    Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs



On Jan 13, 2008, at    4:48 PM, av8rps wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kitfox-List message posted by:    "av8rps" <paul676(at)tds.net>i.e.



 ("Lynn Matteson says "Of    course I can't let this opportunity pass:

 Maybe J doesn't feel like    they need to work on their customer

 satisfaction problem, because the    customers are already satisfied

 just owning a J...not buying that? I    didn't think so....)



 Lynn,



 Yeah, you're    right.  I dont' buy that   But I want to say thanks     

 for giving all of us a heads-up on the realities of owning and     

 operating a Jabiru.  Personally I hope they can continue to    improve  

 their support, as there is definitely a place for their    engines in  

 the light sport aircraft world.  And frankly, I    think it is a nice  

 engine.  There aren't a lot of jabiru    owners yet, but of the ones  

 I've heard from (like yourself)    they are quite happy with their  

 engines.  That says a lot    for a relatively new product.  And as  

 Iv'e said before, I    like the simplicity of the Jab much more than  

 all those hoses    and such the 912 has.

 One thing that has somewhat    surprised me however about the Jab, is  

 while the engine is    advertised to be much lighter than the 912,  

 empty weights    aren't necessarily in agreement with that.  As an  

 example,    my Model IV-1200 long wing was originally 627 pounds empty  

    (currently closer to 650 due to add ons) with my 912ul, IVO  

    inflight prop, electric engine heater, all plexiglass windshield,     

 turtledeck and bubble doors, full panel, carpet, heater core    type  

 cabin heat with an electric fan, heavy 4 ply 8:00 X 6    aircraft  

 tires, heavy paint, heavy plastic strut fairings for    wings and  

 horizontal stab, electric trim, wingtip strobes,    landing and nav  

 lights, dual brakes, 2 built in Gps's, solid    baggage floor,  

 electronic dual tank senders with sender covers    glassed into top of  

 wing tanks, etc, etc.



 As I    recall, your Jabiru 2200 model IV is a very similar weight? So  

    how does it compare option wise?  Comparing our similar model IV     

 Kitfoxes is the best way to compare apples to apples for the    group.



 Paul Seehafer



 Ps - here's a shot of my    panel so you can compare it to yours for  

    equipment



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

    Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 Central Wisconsin

    paul676(at)tds.net





 Read this topic online    here:



    http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157858#157858





    Attachments:



    http://forums.matronics.com//files/pict0375_2_661.jpg

&he  es  y       -->                 - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  nbsp;               - List Contribution Web Site  ;                             =========================
	




    

	




Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

Enginechoices_rev2.xls

Description:

Download

Filename:

Enginechoices_rev2.xls

Filesize:

27 KB

Downloaded:

347 Time(s)

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: engine selection

This sounds like the groundwork for an interesting magazine  

article...one that would help a lot of folks make the decision as to  

engine selection. The only true and honest way to do it would be to  

actually have access to the engines in question. Why this hasn't been  

done is beyond me...or has it? There must have, by now, been done a  

survey of all the available engines that are appropriate for the  

homebuilders needs? If not, why not? Sounds like an article that  

should be written by Kitplanes to me....maybe a joint venture between  

Kitplanes, Sport Pilot, Sport Aviation...others? Maybe that's not a  

good idea either. But there could be an impartial weighing at a  

central site....hey....how about Oshkosh this year? It's supposed to  

be about "experimental aviation" isn't it? Well, here's a perfect  

format for something that is really in the homebuilders' minds.  

Oshkosh has long been going to "showtime" and forgetting the little  

guy who was the reason behind it all. Why not a forum at Oshkosh  

where the engine suppliers bring their engines in and get them  

weighed. Wait a minute, I'm way ahead of you...AFTER the  

weighing....the engine would have to be started and run for a to-be- 

determined length of time...maybe even flown in a plane by the guy  

who is standing behind that engine. That would eliminate the empty  

blocks, the featherweight crankshafts, etc. And make it a claiming  

competition, where the engine would have to be sold at the going  

price, so no super-light mods would be made that would be  

prohibitively costly to the supplier.



This may be a radical thought, or series of thoughts, but I believe  

along these lines there is some merit. There is an engine-builders  

competition that has been shown on Speed Channel, where NASCAR engine  

builders assemble an engine, racing against the clock and another  

team, to see who can get an engine together the fastest, make it run  

for a couple of minutes, and then have all the torques checked to be  

sure somebody didn't just spin a nut on and call it "done."



Maybe we could have a forum where individuals could bring in their  

planes, pull the engine, and weigh it. Impartial judges could be on  

hand, and certified scales, and the results made available by the  

weeks end. Hell, I'd be willing to pull my engine right then and  

there for a weighing, then reinstall it and go fly it. Participants  

could be given some sort of "badge of courage" for their efforts,  

like the mug they give for participation in the Homebuilder's Review.  

By Jove, I do believe I'm on to something here!



The previous writing is copywrited by Lynn C. Matteson, author, and  

in no way shall the ideas contained herein be stolen, used, copied or  

otherwise "ripped off" without due compensation.  : )

Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs

On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:26 PM, av8rps wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 (Lynn Matteson wrote "]Paul- Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in,  

 and I've probably added another 20 with x-ponder, different radio,  

 heat muffs, scat hose, etc....)



 Lynn,



 This is interesting information.  Looks like our Model IV kitfoxes  

 are a lot the same, even though they vary by options.  We each have  

 things that are heavier than the others plane, but also have things  

 that are lighter.  So all in all it seems to pretty well balance  

 out.  Not scientific, but generally it goes to prove there isn't a  

 substantial difference between the Jab and the Rotax by the time  

 the airplane is done



 I weighed my plane three times, twice on wheels, and once when when  

 putting it on the floats.  I only used electronic scales when doing  

 the float W&B, but the numbers jived pretty well with what the  

 other scales told us.  So I believe my numbers are relatively  

 accurate.  My empty weight numbers also are pretty average when  

 comparing to other 912 Model IV's, which run between 625 and 675  

 lbs typically.



 I agree weighing engines as you described would be best.  But  

 really, average numbers for the various models will give the group  

 here a good feel for what they can expect for average weights.



 I've learned a long time ago that even though the specs say one  

 thing, by the time you get the airplane done, it can be all  

 different.  A good example of that is my buddy that built an Avid  

 Mark IV with a 618 rotax a few years back.  After flying it a  

 couple of years he replaced the 618 with a 912 ul, and his net  

 empty weight gain was only 12 pounds.  We all tried to figure out  

 how that could be, but in the end gave up trying to figure out how  

 that was possible.  He's too busy flying the airplane now to worry  

 about it.  But it still mystifies all of us, including him.



 I hope the group can further this study of various models with  

 various engine weights.  That could be really useful information  

 for any of us.



 Paul Seehafer



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 Central Wisconsin

 paul676(at)tds.net





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157880#157880

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

msm_9949(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: engine selection

Thank you John. (Whew)

   

  do not archive



KITFOXZ(at)aol.com wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		      In keeping my final engine decision open until I absolutely need to make it, I found this spreadsheet very interesting to see all values on a single page.  I took the liberty of massaging it a bit into a format I am liking.  All of you guys who have info for the blanks yet to be filled, please spit your numbers out.

   

  John P. Marzluf (John Z.)

Columbus, Ohio

Series V Outback (Out Back In The Garage)

20% Complete, Not Currently Building

Do Not Archive

   

   

    In a  message dated 1/13/2008 6:17:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, lynnmatt(at)jps.net writes:

   	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net>



Paul-

Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in, and I've probably added another  

20 with x-ponder, different radio, heat muffs, scat hose, etc. I'll  

compare what my plane has and try to list what might be different. If  

I skip an item, it means I have about the same thing.

Short wing, fixed-pitch prop, (no on-board engine heater), semi-full  

panel, but mostly VFR, (no "weighty" heater other than heat muffs and  

scat hose) wheel pants, same plastic strut fairings w/fabric and  

paint, (no fairings on hort. stab), (no landing lights), one GPS,  

baggage sack, (no electronic senders  for fuel, just sight gauges). I  

do have an airfoiled vertical stab and rudder, my own rib design and  

rudder fairing...possibly heavy, and I have the 3-leaf tailwheel  

spring, but with a Homebuilders Special (ACS) wheel. I just compared  

my panel with yours, and they are nearly comparable. I have an EIS,  

and you have more gauges, etc. I have the Grove gear.



As I write this, I can't help but think that the best way to compare  

weights of these engines is to put the engines on the same scales and  

get the apples and oranges out of the equation. After all, were your  

aircraft scales and the ones that were used to weigh my plane the  

same calibration?(mine were digital, rented from a local FBO repair  

station) Hard to say, and as long as there is this competition among  

engine suppliers, there will always be that little bit of commercial  

"cheating" going on  among the merchants.



I recall a Norman Rockwell painting that showed a butcher pushing  

down on the scales, while the customer was pushing up? I'd like to  

see a modern day drawing/picture of a Jabiru and a Rotax on the  

balance scales, and see all the shenanigans that would go on behind  

the scenes. : )



Seriously, I would like to see an honest weighing using all the stuff  

that is needed to get the respective engines installed, i.e.,  

mufflers, airducts, air boxes, starters, radiators, coolant, etc.  

EVERYTHING that is required to make the engine run in the plane.

Why doesn't some enterprising magazine such as we subscribe to, do  

this? Loss of advertising dollars from the losers is the probable  

answer, but then, I'm a skeptic by nature. : )



Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs



On Jan 13, 2008, at  4:48 PM, av8rps wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "av8rps" <paul676(at)tds.net>i.e.



 ("Lynn Matteson says "Of course I can't let this opportunity pass:

 Maybe J doesn't feel like they need to work on their customer

 satisfaction problem, because the customers are already satisfied

 just owning a J...not buying that? I didn't think so....)



 Lynn,



 Yeah, you're right.  I dont' buy that   But I want to say thanks  

 for giving all of us a heads-up on the realities of owning and  

 operating a Jabiru.  Personally I hope they can continue to improve  

 their support, as there is definitely a place for their engines in  

 the light sport aircraft world.  And frankly, I think it is a nice  

 engine.  There aren't a lot of jabiru owners yet, but of the ones  

 I've heard from (like yourself)  they are quite happy with their  

 engines.  That says a lot for a relatively new product.  And as  

 Iv'e said before, I like the simplicity of the Jab much more than  

 all those hoses and such the 912 has.

 One thing that has somewhat surprised me however about the Jab, is  

 while the engine is advertised to be much lighter than the 912,  

 empty weights aren't necessarily in agreement with that.  As an  

 example, my Model IV-1200 long wing was originally 627 pounds empty  

 (currently closer to 650 due to add ons) with my 912ul, IVO  

 inflight prop, electric engine heater, all plexiglass windshield,  

 turtledeck and bubble doors, full panel, carpet, heater core type  

 cabin heat with an electric fan, heavy 4 ply 8:00 X 6 aircraft  

 tires, heavy paint, heavy plastic strut fairings for wings  and  

 horizontal stab, electric trim, wingtip strobes, landing and nav  

 lights, dual brakes, 2 built in Gps's, solid baggage floor,  

 electronic dual tank senders with sender covers glassed into top of  

 wing tanks, etc, etc.



 As I recall, your Jabiru 2200 model IV is a very similar weight? So  

 how does it compare option wise?  Comparing our similar model IV  

 Kitfoxes is the best way to compare apples to apples for the group.



 Paul Seehafer



 Ps - here's a shot of my panel so you can compare it to yours for  

 equipment



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 Central Wisconsin

 paul676(at)tds.net





 Read this topic online here:



  http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157858#157858





 Attachments:



 http://forums.matronics.com//files/pict0375_2_661.jpg

&he es y   -->              - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS nbsp;            - List Contribution Web Site ;                         =========================
	




   

	




      Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

	


Marco Menezes

Model 2 582 N99KX

     [quote][b]

msm_9949(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: engine selection

Great idea Lynn. I know just the guy to write the article. Verrry experienced. 

   

  do not archive



Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> wrote:

  [quote]--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Lynn Matteson 



This sounds like the groundwork for an interesting magazine 

article...one that would help a lot of folks make the decision as to 

engine selection. The only true and honest way to do it would be to 

actually have access to the engines in question. Why this hasn't been 

done is beyond me...or has it? There must have, by now, been done a 

survey of all the available engines that are appropriate for the 

homebuilders needs? If not, why not? Sounds like an article that 

should be written by Kitplanes to me....maybe a joint venture between 

Kitplanes, Sport Pilot, Sport  Aviation...others? Maybe that's not a 

good idea either. But there could be an impartial weighing at a 

central site....hey....how about Oshkosh this year? It's supposed to 

be about "experimental aviation" isn't it? Well, here's a perfect 

format for something that is really in the homebuilders' minds. 

Oshkosh has long been going to "showtime" and forgetting the little 

guy who was the reason behind it all. Why not a forum at Oshkosh 

where the engine suppliers bring their engines in and get them 

weighed. Wait a minute, I'm way ahead of you...AFTER the 

weighing....the engine would have to be started and run for a to-be- 

determined length of time...maybe even flown in a plane by the guy 

who is standing behind that engine. That would eliminate the empty 

blocks, the featherweight crankshafts, etc. And make it a claiming 

competition, where the engine would have to be sold at the going 

price, so no super-light mods would be  made that would be 

prohibitively costly to the supplier.



This may be a radical thought, or series of thoughts, but I believe 

along these lines there is some merit. There is an engine-builders 

competition that has been shown on Speed Channel, where NASCAR engine 

builders assemble an engine, racing against the clock and another 

team, to see who can get an engine together the fastest, make it run 

for a couple of minutes, and then have all the torques checked to be 

sure somebody didn't just spin a nut on and call it "done."



Maybe we could have a forum where individuals could bring in their 

planes, pull the engine, and weigh it. Impartial judges could be on 

hand, and certified scales, and the results made available by the 

weeks end. Hell, I'd be willing to pull my engine right then and 

there for a weighing, then reinstall it and go fly it. Participants 

could be given some sort of "badge of courage" for their efforts,  

like the mug they give for participation in the Homebuilder's Review. 

By Jove, I do believe I'm on to something here!



The previous writing is copywrited by Lynn C. Matteson, author, and 

in no way shall the ideas contained herein be stolen, used, copied or 

otherwise "ripped off" without due compensation. : )

Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs

On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:26 PM, av8rps wrote:



[quote] --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "av8rps" 



 (Lynn Matteson wrote "]Paul- Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in, 

 and I've probably added another 20 with x-ponder, different radio, 

 heat muffs, scat hose, etc....)



 Lynn,



 This is interesting information. Looks like our Model IV kitfoxes 

 are a lot the same, even though they vary by options. We each have 

 things that are heavier than  the others plane, but also have things 

 that are lighter. So all in all it seems to pretty well balance 

 out. Not scientific, but generally it goes to prove there isn't a 

 substantial difference between the Jab and the Rotax by the time 

 the airplane is done



 I weighed my plane three times, twice on wheels, and once when when 

 putting it on the floats. I only used electronic scales when doing 

 the float W&B, but the numbers jived pretty well with what the 

 other scales told us. So I believe my numbers are relatively 

 accurate. My empty weight numbers also are pretty average when 

 comparing to other 912 Model IV's, which run between 625 and 675 

 lbs typically.



 I agree weighing engines as you described would be best. But 

 really, average numbers for the various models will give the group 

 here a good feel for what they can expect for average  weights.



 I've learned a long time ago that even though the specs say one 

 thing, by the time you get the airplane done, it can be all 

 different. A good example of that is my buddy that built an Avid 

 Mark IV with a 618 rotax a few years back. After flying it a 

 couple of years he replaced the 618 with a 912 ul, and his net 

 empty weight gain was only 12 pounds. We all tried to figure out 

 how that could be, but in the end gave up trying to figure out how 

 that was possible. He's too busy flying the airplane now to worry 

 about it. But it still mystifies all of us, including him.



 I hope the group can further this study of various models with 

 various engine weights. That could be really useful information 

 for any of us.



 Paul Seehafer



 --------

 Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 Avid Flyer

 Lake Amphibian

 [quote][b]

Fox5flyer
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: engine selection

Interesting post Lynn.  I also agree that all this talk about engine weights 

and airplane weights means nothing because no two setups are alike and 

people don't weigh things the same way, nor are they all weighed on the same 

set of scales.  This engine weight debate has been a common thread here on 

this list for as long as I can remember and other than a whole bunch of 

opinions, nothing has been accomplished and the issue usually just fades 

away until someone else brings it up and brags about how much their airplane 

weighs.  Then it starts back up again with the same result.

Your proposal is a bit radical, but definitely has some merit and it may 

lead to something useful, but it takes a central and credible overseer, 

possibly the EAA.  As we all know, advertising engine weights is especially 

critical when comparing air cooled vs liquid cooled engines because the 

liquid cooled engine requires many more components to be operable and those 

components need to be weighed also.

What I haven't seen is a simple standard developed for engine weighing.  It 

could be a very simple and so long as it's followed, fairly accurate weights 

could be advertised.  It's interesting to watch this whole thing unfold 

because instead of objective analysis what I'm seeing is people defending 

their choice of engines.  Perhaps an ego thing or perhaps some people don't 

like to think or admit that someone else may have made a better choice than 

they did.

Throwing rocks at those who use other than Rotax is counter productive to 

the experimental movement because it steers people away from supporting the 

grass roots movements in the experimental engines.  There was a time when 

the 582 was laughed at as being a "whiny snowmobile engine" and too 

unreliable to use in an airplane.  Bombardier (owner of Rotax) is a huge 

world-wide company with unlimited resources for advertising, research, 

development, etc, just as Lycoming and Continental once were.  Jabiru is by 

comparison a tiny company that is trying to supply a good engine alternative 

to the Rotax, but it's an uphill battle because they don't have the 

resources compared to Rotax.  Then there are the Subarus, Corvairs, Geos, 

etc.  Until there is a clear and objective standard developed and enforced, 

these debates are not very effective for the novice who is looking for the 

best package for his airplane.

Check the links below for lots of information on alternative engines. 

Again, this information is only worth the paper it's printed on.

http://home.adelphia.net/~aeroengine/Contents.html

http://www.aviationlinks.net/activelinks/engines/

http://www.aerofiles.com/motors.html

http://www.aviator.cc/engines2.html



Deke Morisse

Mikado Michigan

S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT

"Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must first be 

overcome".- Samuel Johnson



---

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: engine selection

Hmmmmm....don't most of these authors, once they do an article like  

this, get to keep the stuff they write about? : )



Lynn

do not archive



On Jan 14, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Marco Menezes wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Great idea Lynn. I know just the guy to write the article. Verrry  

 experienced. 



 do not archive



 Lynn Matteson <lynnmatt(at)jps.net> wrote:

 



 This sounds like the groundwork for an interesting magazine

 article...one that would help a lot of folks make the decision as to

 engine selection. The only true and honest way to do it would be to

 actually have access to the engines in question. Why this hasn't been

 done is beyond me...or has it? There must have, by now, been done a

 survey of all the available engines that are appropriate for the

 homebuilders needs? If not, why not? Sounds like an article that

 should be written by Kitplanes to me....maybe a joint venture between

 Kitplanes, Sport Pilot, Sport Aviation...others? Maybe that's not a

 good idea either. But there could be an impartial weighing at a

 central site....hey....how about Oshkosh this year? It's supposed to

 be about "experimental aviation" isn't it? Well, here's a perfect

 format for something that is really in the homebuilders' minds.

 Oshkosh has long been going to "showtime" and forgetting the little

 guy who was the reason behind it all. Why not a forum at Oshkosh

 where the engine suppliers bring their engines in and get them

 weighed. Wait a minute, I'm way ahead of you...AFTER the

 weighing....the engine would have to be started and run for a to-be-

 determined length of time...maybe even flown in a plane by the guy

 who is standing behind that engine. That would eliminate the empty

 blocks, the featherweight crankshafts, etc. And make it a claiming

 competition, where the engine would have to be sold at the going

 price, so no super-light mods would be made that would be

 prohibitively costly to the supplier.



 This may be a radical thought, or series of thoughts, but I believe

 along these lines there is some merit. There is an engine-builders

 competition that has been shown on Speed Channel, where NASCAR engine

 builders assemble an engine, racing against the clock and another

 team, to see who can get an engine together the fastest, make it run

 for a couple of minutes, and then have all the torques checked to be

 sure somebody didn't just spin a nut on and call it "done."



 Maybe we could have a forum where individuals could bring in their

 planes, pull the engine, and weigh it. Impartial judges could be on

 hand, and certified scales, and the results made available by the

 weeks end. Hell, I'd be willing to pull my engine right then and

 there for a weighing, then reinstall it and go fly it. Participants

 could be given some sort of "badge of courage" for their efforts,

 like the mug they give for participation in the Homebuilder's Review.

 By Jove, I do believe I'm on to something here!



 The previous writing is copywrited by Lynn C. Matteson, author, and

 in no way shall the ideas contained herein be stolen, used, copied or

 otherwise "ripped off" without due compensation. : )

 Lynn Matteson

 Grass Lake, Michigan

 Kitfox IV Speedster w/Jabiru 2200

 flying w/460+ hrs

 On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:26 PM, av8rps wrote:



 > 

 >

 > (Lynn Matteson wrote "]Paul- Mine weighed 650 lbs at the weigh-in,

 > and I've probably added another 20 with x-ponder, different radio,

 > heat muffs, scat hose, etc....)

 >

 > Lynn,

 >

 > This is interesting information. Looks like our Model IV kitfoxes

 > are a lot the same, even though they vary by options. We each have

 > things that are heavier than the others plane, but also have things

 > that are lighter. So all in all it seems to pretty well balance

 > out. Not scientific, but generally it goes to prove there isn't a

 > substantial difference between the Jab and the Rotax by the time

 > the airplane is done

 >

 > I weighed my plane three times, twice on wheels, and once when when

 > putting it on the floats. I only used electronic scales when doing

 > the float W&B, but the numbers jived pretty well with what the

 > other scales told us. So I believe my numbers are relatively

 > accurate. My empty weight numbers also are pretty average when

 > comparing to other 912 Model IV's, which run between 625 and 675

 > lbs typically.

 >

 > I agree weighing engines as you described would be best. But

 > really, average numbers for the various models will give the group

 > here a good feel for what they can expect for average weights.

 >

 > I've learned a long time ago that even though the specs say one

 > thing, by the time you get the airplane done, it can be all

 > different. A good example of that is my buddy that built an Avid

 > Mark IV with a 618 rotax a few years back. After flying it a

 > couple of years he replaced the 618 with a 912 ul, and his net

 > empty weight gain was only 12 pounds. We all tried to figure out

 > how that could be, but in the end gave up trying to figure out how

 > that was possible. He's too busy flying the airplane now to worry

 > about it. But it still mystifies all of us, including him.

 >

 > I hope the group can further this study of various models with

 > various engine weights. That could be really useful information

 > for any of us.

 >

 > Paul Seehafer

 >

 > --------

 > Model IV-1200 912ul Amphib

 > Avid Flyer

 > Lake Amphibian

 www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List _- 

 www.matronics.com/contribution _- 

 ============================================================

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Lynn Matteson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2778
Location: Grass Lake, Michigan

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: engine selection

It would be a perfect exercise for the EAA to do. It would have to be  

somebody with deep pockets in order to buy the engines in question,  

because no supplier is going to send out an engine for free, knowing  

that it is going to be weighed for a published comparison against  

other engines, knowing that finally the truth will be known.

I purposely went off a "bit radical" because I've heard that most  

radical thinkers usually calm down a bit later on and somewhere in  

between a good idea is found.

Actually, when I began thinking about engine choices, weight didn't  

enter my mind at first. The first was simplicity. I worked under the  

hoods of cars for over 20 years, professionally, and longer than that  

as a hobby. I saw the influx of crap added to engines, making them  

harder and harder to service. Granted some of the additions were smog- 

related stuff, but it all added to the complexity of the under-hood  

experience. So I knew I wanted a simple engine without a lot of extra  

stuff needed to make it work. I like to keep an eye on my engine, and  

having it "accessible" is one way to do that.

There were a few other points that helped me make an engine decision  

(Sport Pilot Nov.2007...omigod, a shameless plug!), but the LAST was  

weight. I'm not one of these guys that concerns himself with saving  

each and every last ounce of weight. If I want item such-and-such,  

I'll get it, and figure on leaving something out of the baggage sack  

when I go on a trip...although you probably wouldn't believe that if  

you saw me packing the plane up at Oshkosh last summer. : )



Good call on the ego thing, Deke. There is no doubt a lot of energy  

wasted on supporting one's choice, while deep down, some amount of  

coveting is churning. This goes for all of us I think, be it engine  

choice, airplane, automobile, etc....human nature.



Lynn Matteson

Grass Lake, Michigan

Kitfox IV Speedster  w/Jabiru 2200

flying w/460+ hrs



On Jan 14, 2008, at 7:41 AM, fox5flyer wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <fox5flyer(at)idealwifi.net>



 Interesting post Lynn.  I also agree that all this talk about  

 engine weights and airplane weights means nothing because no two  

 setups are alike and people don't weigh things the same way, nor  

 are they all weighed on the same set of scales.  This engine weight  

 debate has been a common thread here on this list for as long as I  

 can remember and other than a whole bunch of opinions, nothing has  

 been accomplished and the issue usually just fades away until  

 someone else brings it up and brags about how much their airplane  

 weighs.  Then it starts back up again with the same result.

 Your proposal is a bit radical, but definitely has some merit and  

 it may lead to something useful, but it takes a central and  

 credible overseer, possibly the EAA.  As we all know, advertising  

 engine weights is especially critical when comparing air cooled vs  

 liquid cooled engines because the liquid cooled engine requires  

 many more components to be operable and those components need to be  

 weighed also.

 What I haven't seen is a simple standard developed for engine  

 weighing.  It could be a very simple and so long as it's followed,  

 fairly accurate weights could be advertised.  It's interesting to  

 watch this whole thing unfold because instead of objective analysis  

 what I'm seeing is people defending their choice of engines.   

 Perhaps an ego thing or perhaps some people don't like to think or  

 admit that someone else may have made a better choice than they did.

 Throwing rocks at those who use other than Rotax is counter  

 productive to the experimental movement because it steers people  

 away from supporting the grass roots movements in the experimental  

 engines.  There was a time when the 582 was laughed at as being a  

 "whiny snowmobile engine" and too unreliable to use in an  

 airplane.  Bombardier (owner of Rotax) is a huge world-wide company  

 with unlimited resources for advertising, research, development,  

 etc, just as Lycoming and Continental once were.  Jabiru is by  

 comparison a tiny company that is trying to supply a good engine  

 alternative to the Rotax, but it's an uphill battle because they  

 don't have the resources compared to Rotax.  Then there are the  

 Subarus, Corvairs, Geos, etc.  Until there is a clear and objective  

 standard developed and enforced, these debates are not very  

 effective for the novice who is looking for the best package for  

 his airplane.

 Check the links below for lots of information on alternative  

 engines. Again, this information is only worth the paper it's  

 printed on.

 http://home.adelphia.net/~aeroengine/Contents.html

 http://www.aviationlinks.net/activelinks/engines/

 http://www.aerofiles.com/motors.html

 http://www.aviator.cc/engines2.html



 Deke Morisse

 Mikado Michigan

 S5/Subaru/CAP 355+ TT

 "Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must  

 first be overcome".- Samuel Johnson

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: engine selection

If it is shorter, the dinner will be Moose... the first time you get here!  I’ll even provide the first round of Screech!  

       

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill

 Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:11 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: engine selection  

  

  

   

A dinner says your take off will be a lot shorter.  Clint

  

 My friend told me once, only fools and crooks bet.  Which one am I?

 

       

  

From: noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: engine selection

 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:12:00 -0330    

I don’t know whether to say thank you or not....  I expect that when I install my 912 I won’t  get as short a take off as I can with the 582.  I do however expect climb rate once airborne to increase.  Cruise speed?  Well the Kitfox, Mod III-A, a modified Mod II with the under cambered wing, isn’t designed to break any speed barriers.    

   

Noel  

   

   

       

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clint Bazzill

 Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:02 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: engine selection  

  

  

   

The O-200 is going to come in at least 100 Lbs more then the 912ULS.  The 2200 is a joke (I think) many reports out that says that the 2 stroke 582 out climbs the Jabiru 2200.  You cannot drive a Kitfox with that little chunk of wood out front.  Before  you get involved with hundreds and hundreds of hours building.  Do some research and fly with these different airplanes.  My take is can't get better then a 912ULS.  Ivoprop.

  

 When you have to put a 25 lb battery in the tail to balance and sweep wings.  Figure

  

 Locate the Kitfox Pilot's Guide.  Part #60000.100  Look at all the aircraft weights, specifications, add  50 lbs to all their empty weights, that works out about right.  Check with these pilots and fly with them.

  

  

  

 Clint

 

 > From: alexandj(at)preachain.org

 > To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 > Subject: Re: engine selection

 > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:43:42 -0800

 > 

 > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Alexander" <alexandj(at)preachain.org>

 > 

 > I'm putting a C-85 into my when I get it. The choice is driven by the fact 

 > that I have a C-85 on hand - newly overhauled with the O-200 STC (crank and 

 > pistons) installed.

 > 

 > I'll be putting a lighter starter and an alternator on it, so that will free 

 > up a few pounds.

 > 

 > I've been curious about the Jabiru engines though. They turn up quite a bit 

 > faster than the O-200 or C-85 necessitating a smaller prop. How does this 

 > affect efficiency/performance?

 > 

 > John Alexander

 > Currently at sea - SBX-1

 > 

 > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:56:37 -0800 (PST), great bear wrote

 > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: great bear <av8r2488(at)yahoo.com>

 > > 

 > > I have been following the talk on engine choices...just another 

 > > thought to add....I have a series 5 outback and will have to make an 

 > > engine choice soon because of wing sweep (or lack of) and would like 

 > > to know your thoughts on a Jabiru 2200 vs a 0-200 cont. Heres my 

 > > thinking....the jabiru weighs in at 138 and the 0-200 at 

 > > 187....ready to go...how much of an even trade is this...50 pounds 

 > > for 20 hp? Now I guess we can close the weight gap by going light 

 > > weight starter and alternator by about 12-15 pounds..I am still 

 > > researching that...I like the simplicity of a direct drive air-

 > > cooled engine..how much does the 912 series really weigh when you 

 > > factor the radiator, hoses, coolant,expansion tank...ect? Does it 

 > > fall somewhere in this weight range? I had a Cessna 140 for 22 years 

 > > and changed the 85 hp to an 0-200 and doubled the rate of climb but 

 > > only gained 2mph in cruise. Since excess hp power is merely the 

 > > ability to climb faster and cruise is a function of aerodynamics 

 > > will the weight savings be traded off for horse power? Also can the 

 > > wings be set at zero sweep and the battery moved to adjust the CG? 

 > > Just getting started in this as I just bought the Outback and got it 

 > > home a week ago....still looking it over and wondering what I have 

 > > gotten myself into here.....If there are any builders who would 

 > > rather respond off list feel free to contact me direct at 

 > > av8r2488(at)yahoo.com Thanks for your advice and help this is a great 

 > > forum.

 > > 

 > > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. 

 > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

 > > 

 > 

 > 

 > --

 > Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy. - Ben Frank=======================

 &g==

 > 

 > 

 >    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution   arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-Listp://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  http://forums.matronics.com 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  http://forums.matronics.com 	
1

       [quote][b]

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: engine selection

Michel: 

One other point on the cooling.  With an air cooled engine, even an engine

which has only air cooled barrels the size and shape of the spinner can make

a  considerable difference to your air cooling efficiency.  When i was in

school I was instructed to check design manuals before sending a plane out

without a spinner.  Some planes have no problems with not having a spinner

others it is considered very important not only to have a spinner but the

right shape too.



Noel Loveys

AME Intern, RPP

Kitfox III-A, 582,B box

Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats

--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum