Jabiru Engine??
Gary Chenier
decided I want folding wings and a 4 stroke engine. Any experiences
with the Jabiru engine??
Gary Chenier
Leo Powning
The Jabiru engine interest group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jabiruengines/
has lots of information. Some users in the U.S. were disatisfied with
the previous U.S. distributor but the current distributors Pete Krotje
in Wisconsin and Andy Silvester in Florida are providing good support.
I have a 2200 in the Jodel D18 I'm building but haven't flown it yet
so can't give a first-hand report but many Jabiru airframes and
engines are used for flight training here in Australia and the users
I've spoken to are very satisfied. Engine usage
doesn't get much harder than in training aircraft doing circuits and
bumps. Naturally there were teething problems for some years after the
80hp 2200cc was first introduced but those problems are history now
because of modifications incorporated in newly produced 2200 engines.
Also take a look at the Sonex site http://www.sonex-ltd.com/ for an
airframe; the Sonex uses Jabiru engines. The Monnett family's support
of the Sonex together with their own, Pete, and Andy's support of the
engines is a hard combination to beat
Cheers,
Leo
Gary Chenier <avia...@aviationthings.com> wrote in message news:<3B3897A0...@aviationthings.com>...
Donald McCall
On 27 Jun 2001, Leo Powning wrote:
> Gary,
> The Jabiru engine interest group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jabiruengines/
> has lots of information. Some users in the U.S. were disatisfied with
> the previous U.S. distributor but the current distributors Pete Krotje
> in Wisconsin and Andy Silvester in Florida are providing good support.
> I have a 2200 in the Jodel D18 I'm building but haven't flown it yet
> so can't give a first-hand report but many Jabiru airframes and
> engines are used for flight training here in Australia and the users
> I've spoken to are very satisfied. Engine usage
> doesn't get much harder than in training aircraft doing circuits and
> bumps. Naturally there were teething problems for some years after the
> 80hp 2200cc was first introduced but those problems are history now
> because of modifications incorporated in newly produced 2200 engines.
<snip>
I wonder what kind of teething problems they'll have with the new 6000;
it's got so much more power (200 hp at 3000 rpm) I'd imagine they'll
encounter problems that they never saw with the smaller engines. Sure
looks like a promising engine for a GlaStar on amphibious floats, except
for the possibility that LL aviation fuel won't be available by the time
I finish building the darn thing. Any chance of using autogas in the
Jabirus?
Don McCall
GlaStar N795DM
Leo Powning
GlaStar on floats sounds a nice combination.
The delay before you need an engine can only benefit you.
Modifications found to be needed will have been included in new
production and not be required to be made in the field with consequent
expense.
The specifications at the factory site http://www.jabiru.net.au/ for
the 6000 call for AVGAS 100/130LL but it's early days yet for the
6000. The U.S. is 50% of the potential market; you can bet Jabiru
wouldn't have tooled up for the 6000 unless they envisioned an AVGAS
substitute.
Cheers,
Leo
Donald McCall <dcm...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.3.96.1010627154037.22858A-100000@bcstec>...
Donald McCall
On 28 Jun 2001, Leo Powning wrote:
> Don,
> GlaStar on floats sounds a nice combination.
> The delay before you need an engine can only benefit you.
> Modifications found to be needed will have been included in new
> production and not be required to be made in the field with consequent
> expense.
> The specifications at the factory site http://www.jabiru.net.au/ for
> the 6000 call for AVGAS 100/130LL but it's early days yet for the
> 6000. The U.S. is 50% of the potential market; you can bet Jabiru
> wouldn't have tooled up for the 6000 unless they envisioned an AVGAS
> substitute.
> Cheers,
> Leo
>
Thanks for the reply, Leo. In fact, I sent a question straight to the
factory and they've already confirmed what you suspected -- they specify
100LL avgas because the octane ratings for auto fuel vary widely in many
parts of the world and aren't always very reliable -- but in the U.S.,
93 octane unleaded auto gas is consistently rated and will work just
fine in all the existing and planned Jabirus. Oh boy -- instead of the
already-sterling performance that folks have seen with 160 hp. worth of
Lycoming hanging off the nose, I might get to experience 200 h.p. with
about 60-70 pounds less empty weight. Waiting for an appropriate
cockpit controllable electric prop, and a firewall forward package
(especially an engine mount) will be the rest of the equation, but I
understand those are already planned or under development.
But I still haven't given up on a Subaru, that amazing smoothness and
quietness (and the advantages of water cooling) also have a lot of
appeal for me. I'm happy to be polishing aileron ribs, sitting on the
sidelines for another year or two, seeing what develops on both fronts.
GlaStar on floats is indeed a nice combination! It was designed from
the very beginning as a floatplane (hence the big tail, STOL capability,
etc). The problem is that amphib. floats like I'd like to install are
so much heavier than straight floats, which can really cut into the
outstanding (250 pound) cargo capacity. This is somewhat mitigated by
the increased max. weight on floats (up from 1960 to 2100, due to the
reduced airspeeds on floats), and by the fact that we get to deduct the
weight of the standard landing gear (about 85 pounds) when adding the
floats. All-in-all, the amphib. floats are quite reasonable, but even
more so with the lighter Jabiru engine. So, it'll be interesting to see
how things shake out.
Don McCall
GlaStar N795DM
(drill, drill, rivet, rivet)
SEAL2CC
>quietness (and the advantages of water cooling)
This raises a point that I am considering. I am building a Zenith Zodiac 601
HDS and considering my engine options between the Jab 3300 and Rotax 912. What
ARE the advantages of water cooling? Supplement to air cooling? Do whatever
advantages that exist outweigh the added complication (and added potential
failure points) that exist with radiators, hoses etc? On the Zenith Matronics
list there has been a long ongoing thread about Subaru radiator placements,
leaks, hot running/cold running etc etc. And there have been similar threads
about other water cooled installations over the past years.
I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
Chris
Zodiac 601 HDS N601BZ
Richmond, VA
Dan Thomas
an EJ22 130 hp. It was a conversion by Rotary Air Force in Kindersley,
Saskatchewan (Canada) originally designed for use in their autogyros.
The Soob is smooth, alright, but in the Glastar it has to sit lower
than the Lycoming would (to get the thrust line where it belongs) and
since I used the cowling for the Lyc O-240 (modified) there is very
little room for mufflers under the engine. What it has now is
essentially baffled exhaust pipes, rather short, that make it sound
like King Kong's Kawasaki. I can tell when it's flying and I live two
miles from the airport.
The radiator is the Subaru Legacy rad that came from the same car
as the engine. It's mounted with its top edge against the firewall and
the lower edge about 7 inches out from the firewall's lower edge, and
is set up so that all air coming through the stock air inlets passes
over the engine and has to exit the cowling by passing through the
rad. The cowling outlet looks like a normal lipped outlet and most
people have no idea the airplane has an auto engine. Until it starts
up, of course. Temps with a 180 thermostat run at about 210 in a long
climb on a 80 degree F day, and at 180 the rest of the time.
The mount I built uses the rubber cones from the O-320-A
Lycoming, as used in the Tri-Pacer. The only thing I would change if
I was to do it again would be the Dynafocal system, which would
require a lot more machining and a bit more hassle getting it lined
up. As it was, getting the engine and rad shoehorned into the cowling
was an adventure.
By the way, this airplane is for sale. Call Doug Hall at (780)
968-0090. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Dan Thomas
Canadian AME, Flight Instructor
sea...@aol.com (SEAL2CC) wrote in message news:<20010629124252...@ng-ms1.aol.com>...
Donald McCall
Well, here's the "theoretical" answer -- not having done it yet, I can't
vouch for the practical issues although they seem manageable.
The 4 main advantages of water cooling (given that you can get a water
cooled engine that's equivalent in weight and horsepower to an
air-cooled engine) are:
1. No more worries about shock cooling the engine, since the engine core
temperature doesn't fluctuate nearly as quickly or nearly as much. This
will be especially helpful in my GlaStar, which has a Vfe (flap
extension speed) of 75 kts (i.e., cruising at 130 kts in a slippery
airplane and needing to slow it down for the pattern without the benefit
of flaps -- the usual approach with a Lycoming is to chop the power
drastically, raise the nose a tad, and let the speed bleed off quickly
and then adding power again before shock cooling can occur -- not really
a problem, but a somewhat inelegant way to fly IMHO). With a
water-cooled engine, shock cooling simply isn't an issue.
2. Less thermal stress in the engine allows for tighter tolerances in
the design and, presumably, less wear and tear on the parts (and a
smoother-running engine).
3. Cabin heat is easier and safer to obtain with a water-cooled engine,
using a simple heat exchanger as for a car; no need to put a heat muff
around, say, an exhaust pipe which might permit carbon monoxide to get
into the cabin.
4. Hopefully fewer hassles in general with cooling the engine properly,
such as needing to build and install baffles between cylinders. Air
cooling for an engine has all sorts of related issues like airflow
through the cowling (and resulting drag); these are still issues with
water-cooling but not nearly so significant. Of course, water-cooled
folks have their own problems with placement of radiators, etc, but it
seems to me that once a "standard" installation is settled upon (i.e., a
complete FF installation such as the NSI EJ-25 Subaru, or SubieLyc with
their much-tested radiator selection) that's there's less trial and
error involved in getting the engine to cool properly and uniformly
among the cylinders.
I personally believe that these advantages outweigh the rather small
risk of a catastrophic cooling problem. Most radiator problems are in
the category of "leaks" not "ruptures", detectable while flying if you
watch the instruments. And, some installations (such as the Eggenfeller
Subaru) claim that the oil cooler has sufficient cooling capacity to get
you home okay even in the event of a complete loss of coolant from the
radiator.
Still, all these advantages might be outweighed by the extra horsepower
and lighter weight of the Jabiru 6000.
Just my fiftieth of a buck...
Regards,
Don McCall