FUEL ECONOMY

[Legeorgen]

John,

One word for Subaru...HEAVEY. Rotax is the best power to weight ratio and a
very good and reliable engine. I'm with Bobp all the way on this one. Iv' e
been flying a 912S on a Kitfox (1200 lb gross weight) for 6 years and don't
believe you can beat it's performance.

I have seen Kitfox's with every configuration of engine, and it is accepted
in the Kitfox club that Rotax is the way to go. The 914 is a turbo charged
engine and with it the complexity and maintenance. For this reason most choose
the 912.

The Rebel with a 912 would be a great STOL plane!
Bruce




-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

...and you can build an unpainted x 912 Rebel at only 658lbs empty... on
certified scales..no paper fudging!! ) This also had moulded windshield
and my compression spring struts!


----- Original Message -----
From: <Legeorgen@aol.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: FUEL ECONOMY

John,

One word for Subaru...HEAVEY. Rotax is the best power to weight ratio and

a

very good and reliable engine. I'm with Bobp all the way on this one. Iv'

e

been flying a 912S on a Kitfox (1200 lb gross weight) for 6 years and

don't

believe you can beat it's performance.

I have seen Kitfox's with every configuration of engine, and it is

accepted

in the Kitfox club that Rotax is the way to go. The 914 is a turbo charged
engine and with it the complexity and maintenance. For this reason most

choose

the 912.

The Rebel with a 912 would be a great STOL plane!
Bruce




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ken]

Yup One of the very credible numbers I've seen for an EA81 with belt
psru was 240# plus. Think that's about twice what a 912 is??
Add 20 more for the overhead cam EA82
Expect 300+ for an EJ22 with psru which I believe is about what an 0-320
will be. You do claw some of that back with less fuel weight though.
Ken

My experience here with VW's and Corvairs is that the reliability
isn't there (especially the corvairs!), and they rev too high, so require
a short prop, with limited thrust, and are not a good choice for the Rebel.
The Subaru EA-81, 1.8 L is 'WAY too heavy for the power, and you
would have to do all the design & engineering yourself - don't even THINK
about NSI !! The EA-82 has not proven as reliable as the EA-81 - in any
case, both are out of production.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Walter Klatt]

One engine that I didn't see anyone mention is the Cont 0200. I
know a couple of local Renegades with them, and they seem to
really like them. A good used one can be had for a fraction of
the price of a 912, and I think they are lighter than the Soobs,
too. And it's a nice sounding 100 hp, too.

Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com
[mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com]On Behalf Of Bob
Patterson
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 2:40 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: FUEL ECONOMY



Hi John !

You are not alone in building a Rebel for the Sport
Plane category.
There should be absolutely NO PROBLEM doing this, and you will
have an excellent sportplane !!

Our Rebel (#001) weighed 716 lb., with upholstery,
carpet, and paint,
and a standard 912 installation. If you take today's
Rebel (1,650), and do
the standard Murphy 912 (or 912-S) installation, you
should come in about
720 - 780 lb. - VERY attractive, compared to many
kits and factory builts
in this class !!!

I would recommend using 2 bays of fuel on both sides,
giving about
30 gallons total. You definitely do NOT want to haul
around 300 lb. of fuel,
OR fly with half tanks and pick up condensation !!
Our Rebel only held
about 11 gallons ... but we used a red gas can in
the baggage area for
longer trips - worked great !!

I would go with the 912-S, as the extra hp. over a
regular 912, for
little extra cost and only a pound or 2 of weight, is
a good trade !

The 914 is not a good choice - MUCH more expensive, harder
to install, with all the extra plumbing, heavier, and
not NEARLY
as reliable. Several nearby with broken cranks at 300 hr. !

My experience here with VW's and Corvairs is that the
reliability
isn't there (especially the corvairs!), and they rev
too high, so require
a short prop, with limited thrust, and are not a good
choice for the Rebel.
The Subaru EA-81, 1.8 L is 'WAY too heavy for the
power, and you
would have to do all the design & engineering yourself
- don't even THINK
about NSI !! The EA-82 has not proven as reliable as
the EA-81 - in any
case, both are out of production.

While other engines sound attractive, we've learned
that any change
from an off-the-shelf, factory-supported solution will
add AT LEAST
6 months to your build time !!
Just get it flying and enjoy your Rebel !! ;-)

At the moment, the Rotax 912 is THE lightest, most
cost-effective,
reliable choice for the Rebel, particularly for the
Sport Class. We flew
our 912 Rebel over 1,000 hours, all over North America, and the
total maintenance was 5 or 6 sets of spark plugs, and
a couple of
air filters. Regular oil changes every 50 hr., with
filters readily available
at auto shops, and fuel burns in the 3 gph range,
premium unleaded.

With the 912-S, if you can get a good variable pitch prop, you
should see 110 mph + cruise. The 912 gave us 97 mph,
with a ground
adjustable wood prop (GSC), and about 1,100 fpm climb solo, and
700 fpm at gross - a really great all-around fun
airplane !! Takeoffs
took under 200 ft., as did landings !

.......bobp


-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Monday 21 March 2005 02:16 pm, John Kramer wrote:

Bob P., etal,

Though I am interested in fuel economy; for me every

decision revolves more

around weight.

I am trying to build a standard Rebel to fly under

the 1320 lb USA Sport

Pilot rules. I've heard a lot of pro and con for

the 912uls and almost

nothing about the 914. Why? Don't they use the

same mount and only have

about a 20 lb difference?

I've also been investigating Jabiru, Subaru, Fat

VW's, Hirth, HCI, Wankel,

Rotec, Corvair, and more. All the diesels seem too heavy
for consideration. W. Wynne claims his Corvair

installations end up

lighter than a 1.8 Subaru and for the life of me I

can't figure how.

At present I am leaning toward the Rotax with Subaru

as first alternative,

but I haven't spent any FF money yet and can't quit

wondering why the 914

doesn't get much mention.

I would like the power of an 0-320 but..... reality

(and the FAA) rules.

John...

At 06:35 AM 03/21/05, you wrote:

Hi Mike !

Well, you know where MY vote goes - right back

where you started

from !! The Rotax 912 is almost impossible to

beat for fuel economy -

we had 10 years of happy flying, with 3 gallons/hr.

as the MAX
consumption !

Not only was the 912 great on fuel, but the

regular maintenance was

limited to new spark plugs every 200 - 300 hours,

and a couple of new

air filters - just a GREAT engine !! Today, I

would go to the 912-S, as

a few extra horses never hurts, and a bit more fuel

is bearable, since

it's mogas ... My NEXT Rebel WILL have a 912-S !

Next choice would be a Subaru 2.5 or 2.2, with a

Marcotte re-drive.

My experience flying Subaru-powered Rebels has

shown fuel burns in

the 5-6 gph range - considerably less than the

Lycosaurus, and again,

more reasonable maintenance costs. This would

involve a fair bit of

extra work to put together, though, if you want to

keep costs low.

If you buy a complete FWF package - from

Crossflow, for example,

it will cost at least as much, or more, than a new

Lycoming !

I would hope there's nobody left who would even

<consider> dealing

with NSI , given their record !!

I totally agree with Ken - if you want to get

flying quickly, and have

the highest resale value, just put in an overhauled

O-320 from Leavens,

and GO FLYING !!! He's right on regarding the

average flying hours -

after the thrill of the first year is gone, many

people look at the costs,

and decide not to go flying - unfortunate in

several ways, but reality !

:-(

.......bobp

-------------------------------------------------------
----------

List archives located at:

https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML

username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------

--



-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ralph Baker]

I was told by Phil Lockwood that the 80hp 912 runs fine on 87 octane and
the 100 hp 912s requires at least 91 octane premium. In addition to all
the already expressed reasons the 914 is a bad idea there is the
additional heat to be dealt with.

The USA sport pilot regs do not allow in flight adjustable props.
Ground adjustable is OK. Waynes weight figures are very believable.
Robin @ MAM told me they built one at 660# by focusing on light (as we
all should)! Now we need a 51% Rebel fast build pushed to the limit to
get the LSA planes in the air faster and be able to participate in the
broader market. By the way, Van's has announced they are designing a
new plane for LSA. Should anyone want to put a set of amphibs on a USA
LSA there is a regulation by the FAA that the gear cannot be
repositioned in flight. Simply said, you have to takeoff and land on
the same surface type. This would make it a "no go" on the amphibs for
me.
Ralph Baker



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Legeorgen]

Ralph,

I understood the FAA regulations on gear for an amphib for LSA is they have
to be hand operated. No electric pumps or motors, I believe this make the
Rebel ok with its hand pump.

Bruce




-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Wayne G. O'Shea]

But the stupidity so far is you can't cycle the gear in flight. Ie: you take
off with gear retracted you have to land with gear retracted...you take off
with gear down, you have to land with gear down. So if you want to go to the
lake from the airport you have to launch off of a cart and then leave the
lake with the gear down and see if you can get it nose high enough to keep
the nose wheels out of the water for take off to come back to pavement. Yah
right....I'd like to see them enforce this "stupidity waiting for disaster".

Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: <Legeorgen@aol.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: fuel economy

Ralph,

I understood the FAA regulations on gear for an amphib for LSA is they

have

to be hand operated. No electric pumps or motors, I believe this make the
Rebel ok with its hand pump.

Bruce




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Gregory Gordon]

on 22/3/05 7:52 AM, Rick Harper at rjwh@optusnet.com.au wrote:

G'day Guys ('n'Gals)

Just got back from the AVALON Airshow in Melbourne .......
(nearly "bought the farm" as they say - TWICE, trying to get out of
Sydney (BAD weather, low clouds & HILLS :o( .... ended up on a kero
burner to get there .... considered a turbine / prop engine for the
Rebel for a while there ...... BAD fuel economy

The ROTEC guys were in our Sport Aircraft stand ...
http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

& now I'm REALLY interested in sticking one of these in our Rebel !!!
There is ONE model now .... but another coming

1) 7 Cylinder, 2800cc, geared engine - putting out 110 HP (but more like
140 HP due to gearing
and using 20 Lts / hr ..... at 108 Kgs

2) 9 Cylinder - coming, geared engine - putting out 150 HP (but will
probably be more like 180 -
200 HP at the prop !!!) ..... and at around 125 Kgs

Rick & Wendy
541R

Off to Narromine for the BIG Ultralight fly - in this coming weekend
(I'm on Hol's !
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Poirier
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: FUEL ECONOMY


Oups..

The 914? you say the 914? Cut the TBO of a 912S by 60%, add $10
000.00
usd and you have a 15 hp extra in a much more fragile engine! Until
you
are in a very low pressure area (compare to sea level), it is
expensive
per horsepower! my idea (a coin value)

Jean
Rebel 747R
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kramer" <369R@kramers.org>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: FUEL ECONOMY

Bob P., etal,

Though I am interested in fuel economy; for me every decision

revolves

more
around weight.

I am trying to build a standard Rebel to fly under the 1320 lb USA

Sport

Pilot rules. I've heard a lot of pro and con for the 912uls and

almost

nothing about the 914. Why? Don't they use the same mount and only

have

about a 20 lb difference?

I've also been investigating Jabiru, Subaru, Fat VW's, Hirth, HCI,

Wankel,

Rotec, Corvair, and more. All the diesels seem too heavy
for consideration. W. Wynne claims his Corvair installations end

up

lighter than a 1.8 Subaru and for the life of me I can't figure how.

At present I am leaning toward the Rotax with Subaru as first

alternative,

but I haven't spent any FF money yet and can't quit wondering why

the 914

doesn't get much mention.

I would like the power of an 0-320 but..... reality (and the FAA)

rules.

John...

At 06:35 AM 03/21/05, you wrote:

Hi Mike !

Well, you know where MY vote goes - right back where you started
from !! The Rotax 912 is almost impossible to beat for fuel

economy -

we had 10 years of happy flying, with 3 gallons/hr. as the MAX

consumption

!

Not only was the 912 great on fuel, but the regular maintenance

was

limited to new spark plugs every 200 - 300 hours, and a couple of

new

air filters - just a GREAT engine !! Today, I would go to the

912-S, as

a few extra horses never hurts, and a bit more fuel is bearable,

since

it's mogas ... My NEXT Rebel WILL have a 912-S !

Next choice would be a Subaru 2.5 or 2.2, with a Marcotte

re-drive.

My experience flying Subaru-powered Rebels has shown fuel burns in
the 5-6 gph range - considerably less than the Lycosaurus, and

again,

more reasonable maintenance costs. This would involve a fair bit

of

extra work to put together, though, if you want to keep costs low.
If you buy a complete FWF package - from Crossflow, for example,
it will cost at least as much, or more, than a new Lycoming !
I would hope there's nobody left who would even <consider> dealing
with NSI , given their record !!

I totally agree with Ken - if you want to get flying quickly, and

have

the highest resale value, just put in an overhauled O-320 from

Leavens,

and GO FLYING !!! He's right on regarding the average flying hours

-

after the thrill of the first year is gone, many people look at the

costs,

and decide not to go flying - unfortunate in several ways, but

reality !

:-(

.......bobp

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Rick,
Why stop with only a 9 cylinder radial!!! Come on you are letting the side
down. What VH-REB needs is a 18 cylinder radial; go with the power and in
the process show the Moose boys your dust. So I attach some plans for you so
that you can scratch build your own radial engine. Have fun.

Kind regards,
Greg. Gordon Elite 724(now started building the wings)





-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Gregory Gordon]

Hello Rick again,
The attachment for the 18 cylinder radial did not come out; see
www.agelessengines.com for your plans.

Greg Gordon.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Harper]

HHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm ...........................

a tad small !
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Gordon
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: FUEL ECONOMY


Hello Rick again,
The attachment for the 18 cylinder radial did not come out; see
www.agelessengines.com for your plans.

Greg Gordon.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login?mode=HTML
username "rebel" password "builder"
Subscription services located at:
https://www.dcsol.com/public/code/html-subscribe.htm
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------