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 choice

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Dareha

Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 9

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: Engine choice

Hi,

    I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy a kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using for engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I can learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you can provide.

 Darrell Haas

Live near Portland, Oregon

  [quote][b]

Paul A. Franz, P.E.

Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 280
Location: Bellevue WA

Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: Engine choice

On Tue, March 3, 2009 7:44 pm, Darrell Haas wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hi,

     I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy a

 kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using for

 engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I can

 learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you can

 provide.


	


Engine selection advice is like asking for someone to pick you a religion. You're

going to have to study this issue if you don't already have an engine. Here's some

things to consider.



1) Will the engine be appropriate for the type of propeller you want. For example, if

the engine is only furnished and can use a wood propeller and you're definitely going

to be using floats, then you might rule that engine out.



2) Economics are an important consideration. There are two parts to this - initial

cost and operational cost. The two stroke engines cost less, are a little lighter but

use more fuel and have more scheduled maintenance costs.



3) Weight of the installed engine, gear reduction and propeller are very important. A

heavy engine is going to limit your useful load. That could greatly influence your

engine selection. An example of a light, powerful and reliable engine well suited for

a Kitfox model IV with a big selection of propellers is a Rotax 912. But the initial

investment is high but it is in the lower range of operational costs. There are

several choices utilizing certified aircraft engines. These are somewhat heavier but

don't require a gear reduction (redrive) and can have close to the best operational

cost but they too have a fairly high initial cost.



4) Consider the most likely uses of the airplane. How you're going to fuel it mostly.

If you can always fuel on your home airport you have the greatest flexibility but if

you have to carry oil for trips and have a two stroke engine, and higher fuel

consumption that would be an influence on your decision whether or not to use a Rotax

582.



5) Consider the firewall foreward part of your kit and factory support. I'd favor a

supported engine installation. It's your airplane so you can pick what you want

though.



6) The weak point of some of the better auto engine conversions is the redrive. Most

of the auto engine conversions are heavier than the designed for aircraft selections.

They have a lot of appeal for die-hard do-it-yourselfers though. Lots of flexibility

and there is a common belief that they can achieve a lower cost of completed

installation and possibly do it without a big weight penalty. Lots of room for

argument and contention here though.



Because of the sensitivity of this issue, people are probably not going to go right to

their conclusion which is the best engine choice. I can tell you what I chose. I have

a Rotax 914. I wanted to have a turbo charged engine for frequent over a mountain

range flying and wanted light weight and a constant speed prop. Although I didn't find

one of those suitable so I bought an NSI CAP. Since those have had problems on Rotax

912/914's and NSI isn't in business anymore, that would no longer be my 

recommendation.



You might want to have something unique too, like a Rotec radial. You might also

consider the dealer support aspect of your engine purchase. You can probably chat with

Lockwood about Rotax or John McBean from Kitfox about engines, what kind of support

and costs.



One thing for sure, making the choice will be a fun process but will require some

effort to get the best result for your needs.





-- 

Paul A. Franz

Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT

Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP

Bellevue WA

425.241.1618 Cell

_________________
Paul A. Franz, P.E.
Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT
Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP
Bellevue WA
425.241.1618 Cell
425.440.9505 Office

Dick Maddux

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 516
Location: Milton, Fl

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:26 am Post subject: Engine choice

Nicely said Paul ! That in a nutshell is it !

                                              Dick Maddux

                                              Fox 4-1200

                                              912 UL 

                                              Pensacola,Fl                                                          

 Need a job? Find employment help in your area.

  [quote][b]

patreilly43(at)hotmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:38 am Post subject: Engine choice

Paul C Well I am a relatively new kid too. I bought a Model 3 a little over a year ago. It that had been damaged and stripped of engine and instruments and disassembled. It was originally built with a 912 and everything was there for that setup including the mount. My intention was to install a 912. But C I saw a 100 hr 582 firewall forward on Barnstormers. It included everything C mount C gages C prop radiator C everything. I figured the cost would be 1/3 to 1/4 of the 912. I should be air worthy in 2 months. It was extra work to set up for 582 C but the engine weighs 1/2 a 912 installation C I don't plan on extended cross country flights in that plane. It's for low and slow. I have alot of experience with 2 stroke motorcycle engines and actually prefer them for dirt bike applications. Despite what others think a 2 stroke engine is just as reliable as a 4 stroke if properly maintained and aren't that harrd to maintain C especially one like a Rotax that is a proven design. Twenty years ago I owned an ultrlaight powered by a Kohler 30 horse engine ( designed for John Deere snow mobiles ) that required no maintainance in the 70 hours we flew it over a 3 year period. It didn't even hiccup once in that 3 years. I stand corrected C I think we changed spark plugs once as routine maintance.



Pat Reilly

Mod 3 582 Rebuild

Rockford C IL



 

  Date: Tue C 3 Mar 2009 19:44:16 -0800

Subject: Engine choice

From: darrellhaas(at)gmail.com

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com



Hi C

    I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy a kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using for engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I can learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Darrell Haas

Live near Portland C Oregon

[quote]



 	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List

ronics.com
	


ww.matronics.com/contribution



[b]

msm_9949(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:18 am Post subject: Engine choice

Darrell,

  

 I put this spreadsheet together awhile ago when we last had this discussion. It's incomplete and prices need updating but it's a start at empirical anaylsis of the choices available.

  

 Have fun.

  

 Marco Menezes N99KX

 Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch 



--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul(at)eucleides.com> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Paul Franz - Merlin GT <paul(at)eucleides.com>

Subject: Re: Engine choice

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 12:27 AM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Paul Franz - Merlin GT"

<paul(at)eucleides.com>



On Tue, March 3, 2009 7:44 pm, Darrell Haas wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hi,

     I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy

a
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using

for
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I

can
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   learn from all of you why you chose your engine. Thanks for any help you

can
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   provide.


	


Engine selection advice is like asking for someone to pick you a religion.

You're

going to have to study this issue if you don't already have an engine.

Here's some

things to consider.



1) Will the engine be appropriate for the type of propeller you want. For

example, if

the engine is only furnished and can use a wood propeller and you're

definitely going

to be using floats, then you might rule that engine out.



2) Economics are an important consideration. There are two parts to this -

initial

cost and operational cost. The two stroke engines cost less, are a little

lighter but

use more fuel and have more scheduled maintenance costs.



3) Weight of the installed engine, gear reduction and propeller are very

important. A

heavy engine is going to limit your useful load. That could greatly influence

your

engine selection. An example of a light, powerful and reliable engine well

suited for

a Kitfox model IV with a big selection of propellers is a Rotax 912. But the

initial

investment is high but it is in the lower range of operational costs. There are

several choices utilizing certified aircraft engines. These are somewhat

heavier but

don't require a gear reduction (redrive) and can have close to the best

operational

cost but they too have a fairly high initial cost.



4) Consider the most likely uses of the airplane. How you're going to fuel

it mostly.

If you can always fuel on your home airport you have the greatest flexibility

but if

you have to carry oil for trips and have a two stroke engine, and higher fuel

consumption that would be an influence on your decision whether or not to use a

Rotax

582.



5) Consider the firewall foreward part of your kit and factory support. I'd

favor a

supported engine installation. It's your airplane so you can pick what you

want

though.



6) The weak point of some of the better auto engine conversions is the redrive.

Most

of the auto engine conversions are heavier than the designed for aircraft

selections.

They have a lot of appeal for die-hard do-it-yourselfers though. Lots of

flexibility

and there is a common belief that they can achieve a lower cost of completed

installation and possibly do it without a big weight penalty. Lots of room for

argument and contention here though.



Because of the sensitivity of this issue, people are probably not going to go

right to

their conclusion which is the best engine choice. I can tell you what I chose.

I have

a Rotax 914. I wanted to have a turbo charged engine for frequent over a

mountain

range flying and wanted light weight and a constant speed prop. Although I

didn't find

one of those suitable so I bought an NSI CAP. Since those have had problems on

Rotax

912/914's and NSI isn't in business anymore, that would no longer be my



recommendation.



You might want to have something unique too, like a Rotec radial. You might

also

consider the dealer support aspect of your engine purchase. You can probably

chat with

Lockwood about Rotax or John McBean from Kitfox about engines, what kind of

support

and costs.



One thing for sure, making the choice will be a fun process but will require

some

effort to get the best result for your needs.





-- 

Paul A. Franz

Registration/Aircraft - N14UW/Merlin GT

Engine/Prop - Rotax 914/NSI CAP

Bellevue WA

425.241.1618 Cell

Engine_choices.xls

Description:

Download

Filename:

Engine_choices.xls

Filesize:

23.5 KB

Downloaded:

508 Time(s)

rjdaugh

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 195

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:23 am Post subject: Engine choice

I agree Paul!     Well said!   

   

Now I know where to go when I need help picking a religion.  

   

Randy  

Series 5/7, 912S (the best choice!) Warpdrive taper tip  

   

   

         

  

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631(at)aol.com

 Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:26 AM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Engine choice  

  

     

Nicely said Paul ! That in a nutshell is it !  

    

                                             Dick Maddux  

    

                                             Fox 4-1200  

    

                                             912 UL   

    

                                             Pensacola,Fl                                                            

  

       

  

Need a job? Find employment help in your area.   	  Quote: 	
		              - The Kitfox-List Email Forum ---> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

_________________
Randy
Kitfox 5/7 912S
Black Hills, South Dakota

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: Engine choice

Great resource Marko.



I have one observation, however.  Of course flying behind a Rotax 912 UL for 

900 hours before losing that airplane in a forced landing, that is the first 

place I looked on the spreadsheet.  What caught my eye was the fuel 

consumption and a fairly large factor in the cost per hour.



I kept a spread sheet for about the first four years tracking fuel per hour 

consumption and for that period it averaged 2.2 gallons per hour.  That 

figure along with a flight, probably in 2002 or 3 when a group of six flew 

from Rancho Murietta, CA to Winnemucca, NV on our way to exlporing the Idaho 

back country.  The flight was right at three hours (three hours and about 20 

minutes as my flight path took me from Cameron Park to Rancho Murietta)  and 

I topped up in Winnemucca taking 7.7 gallons.  Others in the group took as 

much as 11 gallons, a little over half of what shows for fuel gph on the 

spead sheet.  Keep in mind that the typical Kitfox flying around the patch 

is not in full power settings but a small fraction of the time.



I guess the point is that the religion analogy is a very good one.  There is 

a lot of belief and opinion factored into the equation and hard facts (at 

least universally accepted ones) are pretty hard to come by.  I have beliefs 

based on some experience and observation and they move me back to the 912 UL 

like I had.  I am sure other opinions will vary.



Lowell

---

rjdaugh

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 195

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: Engine choice

Lowell,

I sure agree that the 912 engines are thrifty.  When I had a wrong propeller

on my 912S early on, fuel burn was averaging under 3 gph.  Now with a better

propeller (108 - 110 mph cruise versus 95 mph) the average is now closer to

3.5 gph when going somewhere.  Like you say, when just out to check the

sights or enjoy the evening, fuel burn is much lower.  I usually fly at

about 5-6,000' - my strip is at 4400'.  I don't know if that affects my burn

rate.



I love that engine.



Randy



--

_________________
Randy
Kitfox 5/7 912S
Black Hills, South Dakota

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: Engine choice

At 07:44 PM 3/3/2009, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		      I'm a new kid on the block and it looks like I may be able to buy a kitfox Mark IV. I am really excited and wondering what people are using for engines and why. We all want the best bang for our bucks and hopefully I can learn from all of you why you chose your engine. 	


 I run a 582 C box with a 70" Warp 3 blade on a Kitfox IV-1200.



 Pro:  Light. (To pull the engine I unbolt it, pick it up by hand, and set it on a bench. Try THAT with any other engine.) 
Really, REALLY, easy to work on. 
Quiet. 
Reliable. (So far.) 
Swings a big prop very slowly. (More thrust.) 
Very cheap to buy. 
Can change gear ratios for an amazing array of prop options. 
Super easy to start. (Like a snowmobile.) 
No need to pre-heat. (Like a snowmobile.) 
Con:  Higher fuel burn. (4.5 gph (at) cruise.) 
Vibration. (2 cylinder typical.) 
Higher acoustic pitch. (Not for the manly man.) 
Very low TBO. (300 hours, though the folks in South Africa have some studies indicating much higher numbers are appropriate, and have increased their TBO to 600 hours.) 
Parts are expensive, relative to auto. 
It burns oil, so if you're going just about anywhere you have to carry all the oil you're going to use for that trip, or stage it accordingly. Interestingly this seriously degrades any weight reduction normally attributed to the motor. 
Low permanent magnet alternator output. (12 amps continuous.) 
Great care required in operation to keep EGT's in line. (No big deal with a mixture control and a little experience, but you do have to be careful.) 

         I've been very happy with mine, but will eventually switch to either a 912 or a diesel. I do lots of cross countries and am tired of carrying oil instead of passengers.



 

 Guy Buchanan

 San Diego, CA

 K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 300 hrs. and counting    [quote][b]

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

patreilly43(at)hotmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject: Engine choice

What religion you pick doesn't matter much. Picking an engine does!

 do not archive



Pat Reilly

Mod 3 582 Rebuild

Rockford C IL



 

  From: rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Engine choice

Date: Wed C 4 Mar 2009 09:22:31 -0700



  .ExternalClass .EC_shape {;}       .ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal C .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal C .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass a:link C .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;text-underline:single;} .ExternalClass a:visited C .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;text-underline:single;} .ExternalClass pre {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Courier New';} .ExternalClass span.EC_EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} .ExternalClass span.EC_SpellE {;} .ExternalClass span.EC_GramE {;} (at)page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;}    

I agree Paul!     Well said!  

  

Now I know where to go when I need help picking a religion. 

  

Randy 

Series 5/7 C 912S (the best choice!) Warpdrive taper tip 

  

  

     

 

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catz631(at)aol.com

Sent: Wednesday C March 04 C 2009 5:26 AM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Engine choice

 

   

Nicely said Paul ! That in a nutshell is it !

  

                                             Dick Maddux

  

                                             Fox 4-1200

  

                                             912 UL 

  

                                             Pensacola CFl                                                          

 

    

 

Need a job? Find employment help in your area. 	  Quote: 	
		              - The Kitfox-List Email Forum ---> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -             - List Contribution Web Site -                              -Matt Dralle C List Admin.  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		    	
1

 	  Quote: 	
		    	
2  [quote][b]

msm_9949(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:38 pm Post subject: Engine choice

Lowell,

 

I make no claims to accuracy or completeness of the data contained in the spreadsheet. But I can say that the information it contains comes from the engine manufacturer's and/or distributor's own sources. My intent was to initiate a tool for empirical, apples-to-apples comparison, to the extent possible. I continue to encourage everyone to add verifiable data as they see fit and to share it with the rest of us.

 

Marco Menezes N99KX

Model 2 582-90 C-Box 3:1 w/clutch



--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:



From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>

Subject: Re: Engine choice

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 2:27 PM




<lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>



Great resource Marko.



I have one observation, however.  Of course flying behind a Rotax 912 UL for

900 hours before losing that airplane in a forced landing, that is the first

place I looked on the spreadsheet.  What caught my eye was the fuel consumption

and a fairly large factor in the cost per hour.



I kept a spread sheet for about the first four years tracking fuel per hour

consumption and for that period it averaged 2.2 gallons per hour.  That figure

along with a flight, probably in 2002 or 3 when a group of six flew from Rancho

Murietta, CA to Winnemucca, NV on our way to exlporing the Idaho back country. 

The flight was right at three hours (three hours and about 20 minutes as my

flight path took me from Cameron Park to Rancho Murietta)  and I topped up in

Winnemucca taking 7.7 gallons.  Others in the group took as much as 11 gallons,

a little over half of what shows for fuel gph on the spead sheet.  Keep in mind

that the typical Kitfox flying around the patch is not in full power settings

but a small fraction of the time.



I guess the point is that the religion analogy is a very good one.  There is a

lot of belief and opinion factored into the equation and hard facts (at least

universally accepted ones) are pretty hard to come by.  I have beliefs based on

some experience and observation and they move me back to the 912 UL like I had. 

I am sure other opinions will vary.



Lowell

---

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: Engine choice

I fully understand, Marco.  I hope it didn't sound like I was criticising 

your effort.  I was just trying to point out how difficult it is to get 

everyday data for comparison.  I wouldn't give much credence to published 

weights either.  I think the best information there is the final empty 

weight of various projects and look for trends, i.e.  the low  600 lb. Model 

IV with a 912.  I remember Lance Wheeler - NSI - stating that their EA81 was 

35 lbs heavier than the 912 then builders were forced to offset  the extra 

100 ft lbs forward of the datum with 200 ft lbs. aft.



I found this same weight thing when researching landing gear.  Grove 

advertises their spring gear for the Model IV at 34.3 lbs.  I called and 

asked what the total was including the mounting plates and hardware.  It was 

over 30 lbs.  I guess if I was going to carry it around in the baggage sack 

their figure is a keeper, but in order to use it it took another six poungs 

of stuff.  I am not sure Rotax includes such things as radiators,  oil 

coolers hoses and coolant in their engine weights either.  I suspect not.



For the benefit of those thinking and doing the research maybe it would be 

helpful to go back to the survey we did in 2006 and add empty weights, 

actual fuel consumption, climb, cruise, fairings, etc.  I just checked the 

spreadsheet and out of  117 entries four listed empty weights - two Model 

IVs and two Series 5s.  The two fours came in at empty weights of 625 (on 

wheels)  and 673 and the 5s were 925 and 776.  The IV's had 912s, and the 5s 

an auto conversion and a 912ULS.



Lowell Fitt

Cameron Park, CA

Model IV-1200 R-912 UL

Building

---

Fox5flyer
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:38 am Post subject: Engine choice

Let the flood gates open...again.



 	  Quote: 	
		   weights either.  I think the best information there is the final empty 

 weight of various projects and look for trends, i.e.  the low  600 lb. 

 Model IV with a 912.  I remember Lance Wheeler - NSI - stating that their 

 EA81 was 35 lbs heavier than the 912 then builders were forced to offset 

 the extra 100 ft lbs forward of the datum with 200 ft lbs. aft.


	


I was waiting for something like this to come up, but you surprised me, 

Lowell with the numbers you gave.  You generally avoid anecdotal information 

that can't be backed up.  I'll stipulate that the 912x is a great engine and 

very light for it's power output and there is no doubt in my mind that it is 

probably the premier aircraft engine when used for it's intended design. 

However, there is a hefty price for that and many of us do not have pockets 

that are deep enough to go that route.

As for all up weights, I won't speak for the Model IV because mine is a V. 

For balast the only thing I had to do was put my battery in the tail, 

nothing more, and that was including the CAP prop, which by it'self is 

relatively heavy.  Also, I suppose there might be a 600 lb Model IV with a 

912 out there, but I suspect it's definitely not typical.



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 I found this same weight thing when researching landing gear.  Grove 

 advertises their spring gear for the Model IV at 34.3 lbs.  I called and 

 asked what the total was including the mounting plates and hardware.  It 

 was over 30 lbs.  I guess if I was going to carry it around in the baggage 

 sack their figure is a keeper, but in order to use it it took another six 

 poungs of stuff.  I am not sure Rotax includes such things as radiators, 

 oil coolers hoses and coolant in their engine weights either.  I suspect 

 not.


	


Exactly.  It's been said that numbers don't lie, but unfortunately in the 

experimental world no two people (or factories) provide their weights with a 

verifiable standard which makes the numbers useful, but meaningless.  And 

for what it's worth, when I was building, I weighed my Grove gear along with 

axles, bolts, nuts, clamps, wheels, tires, and brakes.  Basically everything 

that was required to keep the airplane off the ground.  Surprisingly it came 

out to almost exactly 75lbs.  Then again, that weight is comparatively 

meaningless because I have no idea how much the tube gear weighs with the 

same items included.  I've always wondered...



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 For the benefit of those thinking and doing the research maybe it would be 

 helpful to go back to the survey we did in 2006 and add empty weights, 

 actual fuel consumption, climb, cruise, fairings, etc.  I just checked the 

 spreadsheet and out of  117 entries four listed empty weights - two Model 

 IVs and two Series 5s.  The two fours came in at empty weights of 625 (on 

 wheels)  and 673 and the 5s were 925 and 776.  The IV's had 912s, and the 

 5s an auto conversion and a 912ULS.

 Lowell Fitt


	


One thing that needs to be kept in perspective here is that regardless of 

engine weights and periferals, the V with no engine at all is much heavier 

than the IV with no engine.  A given.  Using all up weights between aircraft 

whether they be IV or V or II has limited value because no two builders 

build the same way nor do they use the same materials.



Personally, what I would like to see is a standard developed for weighing 

engines.  There are so many variables out there that it's really impossible 

to find out what the real weights are unless you have one in your hands and 

weigh it for yourself.   Perhaps it would be a good project for submittal to 

the EAA for publication, but I doubt that will ever happen.  Too many people 

with there own agendas.



Deke Morisse

Mikado Michigan

S5/Subaru/CAP 402+ TT

"The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress."

- Joseph Joubert

mlpaton2000(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: Engine choice

soory to come in so late, lowell

i had a912 in a series 5,it works well but it decided to go for a sleep 13 hrs after servising it and i hit the deck, it was a ok engine but now i suspisios

cheers michael

had only 450 hrs on it



--- On Thu, 3/5/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:



From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>

Subject: Re: Engine choice

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 5:20 PM






I fully understand, Marco.  I hope it didn't sound like I was criticising your effort.  I was just trying to point out how difficult it is to get everyday data for comparison.  I wouldn't give much credence to published weights either.  I think the best information there is the final empty weight of various projects and look for trends, i.e.  the low  600 lb. Model IV with a 912.  I remember Lance Wheeler - NSI - stating that their EA81 was 35 lbs heavier than the 912 then builders were forced to offset  the extra 100 ft lbs forward of the datum with 200 ft lbs. aft.



I found this same weight thing when researching landing gear.  Grove advertises their spring gear for the Model IV at 34.3 lbs.  I called and asked what the total was including the mounting plates and hardware.  It was over 30 lbs.  I guess if I was going to carry it around in the baggage sack their figure is a keeper, but in order to use it it took another six poungs of stuff.  I am not sure Rotax includes such things as radiators,  oil coolers hoses and coolant in their engine weights either.  I suspect not.



For the benefit of those thinking and doing the research maybe it would be helpful to go back to the survey we did in 2006 and add empty weights, actual fuel consumption, climb, cruise, fairings, etc.  I just checked the spreadsheet and out of  117 entries four listed empty weights - two Model IVs and two Series 5s.  The two fours came in at empty weights of 625 (on wheels)  and 673 and the 5s were 925 and 776.  The IV's had 912s, and the 5s an auto conversion and a 912ULS.



Lowell Fitt

Cameron Park, CA

Model IV-1200 R-912 UL

Building

---

Lynn Matteson

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

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: Engine choice

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but now that someone has  

admitted to having trouble with a Rotax, I'll chime in with a  

suggestion for the Jabiru 2200 engine. Mine made it to 562 hrs before  

crapping the bed, but it's working just fine now. This is just to say  

that all engine makes have a bad apple now and then, and no make is  

exempt.



Lynn Matteson

Kitfox IV Speedster, taildragger

Jabiru 2200, #2062, 610 hrs

Sensenich 62x46

Electroair direct-fire ignition system

Status: flying





On Mar 6, 2009, at 7:53 AM, michael paton wrote:



[quote] soory to come in so late, lowell

 i had a912 in a series 5,it works well but it decided to go for a  

 sleep 13 hrs after servising it and i hit the deck, it was a ok  

 engine but now i suspisios

 cheers michael

 had only 450 hrs on it



 --- On Thu, 3/5/09, Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:



 From: Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>

 Subject: Re: Engine choice

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009, 5:20 PM



 

 <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net>



 I fully understand, Marco.  I hope it didn't sound like I was  

 criticising your effort.  I was just trying to point out how  

 difficult it is to get everyday data for comparison.  I wouldn't  

 give much credence to published weights either.  I think the best  

 information there is the final empty weight of various projects and  

 look for trends, i.e.  the low  600 lb. Model IV with a 912.  I  

 remember Lance Wheeler - NSI - stating that their EA81 was 35 lbs  

 heavier than the 912 then builders were forced to offset  the extra  

 100 ft lbs forward of the datum with 200 ft lbs. aft.



 I found this same weight thing when researching landing gear.   

 Grove advertises their spring gear for the Model IV at 34.3 lbs.  I  

 called and asked what the total was including the mounting plates  

 and hardware.  It was over 30 lbs.  I guess if I was going to carry  

 it around in the baggage sack their figure is a keeper, but in  

 order to use it it took another six poungs of stuff.  I am not sure  

 Rotax includes such things as radiators,  oil coolers hoses and  

 coolant in their engine weights either.  I suspect not.



 For the benefit of those thinking and doing the research maybe it  

 would be helpful to go back to the survey we did in 2006 and add  

 empty weights, actual fuel consumption, climb, cruise, fairings,  

 etc.  I just checked the spreadsheet and out of  117 entries four  

 listed empty weights - two Model IVs and two Series 5s.  The two  

 fours came in at empty weights of 625 (on wheels)  and 673 and the  

 5s were 925 and 776.  The IV's had 912s, and the 5s an auto  

 conversion and a 912ULS.



 Lowell Fitt

 Cameron Park, CA

 Model IV-1200 R-912 UL

 Building

 ---

_________________
Lynn
Kitfox IV-Jabiru 2200
N369LM

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: Re: Engine choice

 	  lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net wrote: 	
		  Great resource Marko.



I have one observation, however.  Of course flying behind a Rotax 912 UL for 

900 hours before losing that airplane in a forced landing, 

Lowell

--- 	




Lowell,



What caused your forced landing ?   Was the plane not rebuildable ?   What type of engine do you have now ?   The 912 series has a reputation for being very reliable, I had not heard about your forced landing.  The 912's are expensive engines, but considered well worth the money if you can afford it.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: Engine choice

Mike,  It was contamination in the oil that resulted in a drop in oil 

pressure.  We were on the way to the factory fly-in two years ago and over 

the Sierra foothills.  I decided that the prudent thing to do was make a 

precautionary landing in a clearing.  The landing didn't come out very well, 

as I  landed away from the river and powerlines, but found my path to 

actually be downhill and the ground sank at just about the same rate as I 

was and I put it down rather than take my chances with the oak trees.



The contamination was presumed to be from an oil bottle - possibly the ring 

that secures the cap.  The engine never quit.



Lowell



---

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Engine choice

That had to suck, but thanks for sharing the story.  I will be very careful of those rings when pouring oil into engines after hearing this.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

shinco(at)bright.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: engine choice

I too belive that when you change things in your engine from stock.Like 

changing pistons,cranks,rods,etc...you do increase HP.and may B more 

speed..BUT...having sand rails that when I changed things for more 

power,and HP..yes that is true..BUT down the road you will pay for it..I 

found out in the long run..there was alot of reliability problems,,and 

all ways working on them VW engines.and then when they broke down they 

would cost even more to fix them..All so they would break down at the 

darnest times.when you did not want then to..Like when going up a steep 

hill..OH no the engine just blew up...this has happen many times...so 

after all of that.messing with thoese VW engines..now I do not change 

engines any more .I leave them stock...my life means more that a little 

extra HP..and all so now I do not have to keep working on them either..a 

lot more reliability..Just my thoughts on the matter...Steve Shinabery 

N554KF  KF2   rotax 582

Float Flyr

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

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:09 pm Post subject: engine choice

Good point as most certified engines are not hopped up but detuned for

reliability.  



Noel



--

_________________
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
Page 1 of 1

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