new parts and innards. The prototype 3000 is being mounted on Contact
Magazine's 601XL.
http://www.contactmagazine.com/CH601XL/ ... -3000.html
http://www.revmasteraviation.com/produc ... /index.htm
John...
schaumr@dcsol.com wrote:
Keith,
Check out www.flycorvair.com for an alternative to VW engines.
A Wagabond, Skycoupe, and Zenith 701 are just 3 examples of slower, high
wing aircraft (not to mention the countless Pietenpols) that seem to have
found sufficient performance behind a ~3000 rpm prop. William Wynne has
some thoughts on the long v. short prop debate; he worked for MT propellers
for several years.
Rob
On 2/10/2008 9:38 PM, im_planecrazy@yahoo.com wrote to rebel-builders:
-> Bob,
->
-> Maybe what I have been reading is a bunch of baloney on the Rotax. I
was only relaying what a guy said that runs several of them in a fleet of
trainers. I'll have to see if I can find the thread and on what forum I was on.
I do remember him saying they were good but longevity sucked. I really do
like the Rotax but I think it is out of my price range.
->
-> Keith
->
-> Bob Patterson <bobp@prosumers.ca> wrote:
->
-> Another VW to look at would be the Aero-V from the Sonex folks ....
->
-> The problem with VW's and Jabiru's is that the peak power comes in
-> past 3,200 rpm - this means a short prop, which doesn't work well with
-> the fat Rebel fuselage stopping most of the meager wash ...
->
-> I suspect you could fly a Rebel with the 80 hp or so .. VW engines, but
-> you would likely get the effect of maybe 65 hp - still flyable, but not
-> great performance. The Rotax works so well because the gearbox
-> allows a longer, slow turning prop - lots of torque & pull.
->
-> My 80 hp. Rotax 912 took over 600 hours just to break-in !! There
-> are several of these engines still pulling training aircraft after 4,000 +
-> hours, with only minor maintenance. They require 'way less regular
-> work than Lycosauruses or Clunktinentals !
->
-> Total parts cost to run my 912 for 1,000 hours was about $700.00,
-> including spark plugs & oil filters. To run my Lycoming O-235 for
-> 1,000 hours, parts cost (not incl. LABOUR !) was about $7,000 !!
-> (2 cracked, worn cylinders, exhaust system, 1 magneto, carb overhaul ...)
-> .... and it burned almost twice as much fuel !
-> You pays me now, or you pays me later !!! ;-)
->
-> --
-> ......bobp
-> bobp@prosumers.ca
-> http://www.prosumers.ca
-> http://bpatterson.qhealthbeauty.com
-> http://apatterson2.qhealthzone.com
-> http://apatterson2.ordermygift.com
->
-> -------------------------------orig.-------------------------
-> On Sunday 10 February 2008 20:56, Ken wrote:
-> > Has anyone considered VW engine such as Great Plains or a Corvair for
-> > cheap power?
-> > At LSA weights I'd think it might be viable if you just wanted to fly
-> > economically and not go fast... Remember engine weight is only part of
-> > it, engine + fuel weight for the mission is what counts.
-> >
-> > There is a good recent VW thread on the RAH list.
-> >
-> > Ken
-> >
-> > Keith Leitch wrote:
-> > > Charlie,
-> > >
-> > > That is the main reason for my question. I have been heavily
-> > > researching the Rotax and like you, I noticed the price has gone up to
-> > > where I feel it will not be feasable for me to use one. I also have read
-> > > where places that use them a lot have a hard time getting them to
reach
-> > > TBO. And repair is as much as buying a new engine. They do relay that
-> > > they are reliable and fuel efficient but to me paying $20,000+ for an
-> > > engine that only lasts 1,000-1,500 hrs is NUTS!! That Continental is
-> > > looking better all the time. I had planned on an O-320 but now that I
-> > > need to go the LSA route I'll have to figure something else out.
Another
-> > > member on this site is strongly leaning towards the IE260 (?), its a
-> > > Scandanavian engine and it does look promising. There is also the
Jabiru
-> > > than another member is using. I'll definitely be keeping up on the
-> > > progress of both of these guys.
-> > >
-> > > Keith
-> > >
-> > > Charlie Eubanks wrote:
-> > > Keith
-> > >
-> > > I am building my Rebel to gross at 1320 Lbs. so I can fly it as LSA. I
-> > > had originally planed on installing a 100 HP Rotax in my Rebel but the
-> > > price in the last 8-10 months has increased a good 30+%. and a used
-> > > Rotax is rare and hard to find. As a result the 0-200 Cont. is looking a
-> > > lot better even though it is 65+ Lbs. heaver then the Rotax. I would
-> > > like to hear from any one out there who is flying a Rebel with 0-200
and
-> > > what kind of performance they are getting just operating wheels only.
-> > >
-> > > Charlie E.
-> >
->
->
->
->
->
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
-> username "rebel" password "builder"
-> Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
-> List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
->
->
->
->
->
->
-> ---------------------------------
-> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
