Engine choice

[Brian]

Has anyone looked into the 914UL Turbo? Noticed that the Kitfox series 7 is
using that power plant. I haven't been able to get any of the fuel burn
rates, though.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:29 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Engine Choice


Hi Ben !

You're not all wet, but I think a NEW 912-S is only about $11,000,
and a NEW Lyc. is about $25,000 ! That is NOT expensive, for a modern,
well engineered aircraft engine, with modern metallurgy and electronic
ignition !!! I know of 912s with over 3,600 hrs without overhaul.
(Unlike the 1938 farm tractor technology of a Lyc. ...)

An OLD Lyc. is just a money pit - you never know when it's going
to bite you ! Cylinders crack - especially after about 3,000 hrs,
and there's no way of knowing how many hours are on your 'rebuilt'
cylinders .... about $1,800 a pop (or crack ! ;-) ) hereabouts !
I don't know about prices your way, but here, a rebuilt O-320 will
run between 19,000 and 21,000 CDN ... the days of $5,000 engines
are loooong gone ! :-)

Even with all those mods, your old Lyc. will burn a solid 8 gph -
mine went to 11 gph on the test stand ! (And some oil !)
Also, the Lyc. wants 80 octane leaded gas, which no longer exists,
so uses 100 LL, which soon will disappear - and, if you run mogas,
(which is going to be difficult, 'cause you can't run alcohol,
and everybody is trying to add at least 10% alcohol, even though
it's bad science ....) - you will have to buy expensive additives
to lube the valve seats !

The 912 was designed from scratch for mogas, and our trusty
912 burned 3 gph, dropping to about 2 1/2 in winter, for over 1,000 hours,
and no oil ! Maintenance is just routine spark plugs and air filters.

The rock solid reliability of the 912, plus the sprightly performance
and handling it gave the Rebel, are the reasons I want to go back to it !

.....bobp

-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 03:44 pm, bransom@dcsol.com wrote:

Pretty interesting to see these preferences for the 912S and XP-360. They

would result in fairly different airplanes -- one easy on the gas, the

other

on steroids. Funny too Bob, you're heading back to nearly the Rebel you
started with (+20 horses), right? Coupla other thoughts:

I think it fair to say too that the 912S ain't cheap in the first place.
I like to think a 320 could be rebuilt and some of the efficiency and

weight

saving items (lite alternator, LSE, Ellison carb, Prince prop -- adding up

to

160+hp w/out high compression), for equal or less than a new 912S. And,

an

0320 could be driven slowly most of the time at 7gph instead of 912S

@5gph,

so not too huge a gas budget difference, especially for someone like me

who

will probably stay in the 50-100 hours flying per year. Am I all wet on

this

line of thought?
-Ben/ 496R



-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
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
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]

Isn't that a tad extreme? Several years ago Daryl told us that he
recommended moving the firewall back even for an 0-235.

There are a lot of comments in the archives about needing more than
factory spec up elevator, moving the battery into the tailcone, adding
ballast, etc. Certainly there are pluss's and minus's of moving it but
from a balance issue I don't think it is anywhere near as limiting as
this??? And one can always make the engine mount to move the engine 3"
farther forward.

Ken

Bob Patterson wrote:

Hi Brad !

<ALL> the O-320 mods ??!!! DON'T move the firewall back 3",
or you will be stuck with an O-320 !!!

If you leave the firewall where it belongs, you can use all
the engine choices - from the 912 up !

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

[Bob Patterson]

I remember he told Jack to move it back 2" for the O-290 (which turned
out to be heavier than an O-320 ...). Putting the battery in the back
is pretty much necessary, even if you move the FW back 3", and the
27 degrees of up elevator is desirable, even with a 912.

I was just reminded of how much moving the FW back 3" screws up all
kinds of things .... the seating position is farther back, visibility is
not as good, sticks have to be changed, radios stick out of the panel
because there isn't enough room behind, there's not enough room for
feet on the floor before the bump, torque tube hits the back of legs,
hard to get seats back far enough, windshield hangs out over engine,
lots of stuff ! ... just uncomfortable !

You're right, though - you could lengthen the engine mounts
(have to custom fabricate though) by 3", and re-do the cowling,
and maybe the windshield - but that longer engine mount might be
more subject to bending loads ....

There are several Rebels flying with O-320's, O-360's, and Subaru
EJ-22's with the firewall in the standard position - and most seem
happy. It's really builder's choice - that's what's great about
homebuilts ! :-) (as long as the C of G is within limits !)

......bobp

-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 09:37 pm, Ken wrote:

Isn't that a tad extreme? Several years ago Daryl told us that he
recommended moving the firewall back even for an 0-235.

There are a lot of comments in the archives about needing more than
factory spec up elevator, moving the battery into the tailcone, adding
ballast, etc. Certainly there are pluss's and minus's of moving it but
from a balance issue I don't think it is anywhere near as limiting as
this??? And one can always make the engine mount to move the engine 3"
farther forward.

Ken

Bob Patterson wrote:

Hi Brad !

<ALL> the O-320 mods ??!!! DON'T move the firewall back 3",
or you will be stuck with an O-320 !!!

If you leave the firewall where it belongs, you can use all
the engine choices - from the 912 up !

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Rick Harper]

G'day Guys !

Ours was left in the "normal " position (no shortening of the
firewall) - 'cause we heard about all the other problems shortening up
the fuse would cause.

Originally had an 0-235 ... now has an IO-320 - but with lightweight
starter & alternator (B & C) ... (the alternator is driven off the
vacuum pump pad - as we don't use one as we have a venturi) And this
lightweight alternator is now at the REAR of the engine
Also has a wooden prop

Originally I made a SHORT engine mount for the 0-235 .... but I made the
IO-320 5" further forward - for access behind the engine

Odyssey battery ON the engine side of the firewall

BUT

10 Kg lead shot in a bag - tied to the rudder post - balance is GREAT,
flare is great ...
when you don't dump the flaps too high like I did :o(

She flys excellently - doesn't even notice the 10 Kgs in the tail end !

Rick & Wendy Harper
541R
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Patterson
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Engine Choice



I remember he told Jack to move it back 2" for the O-290 (which
turned
out to be heavier than an O-320 ...). Putting the battery in the back
is pretty much necessary, even if you move the FW back 3", and the
27 degrees of up elevator is desirable, even with a 912.

I was just reminded of how much moving the FW back 3" screws up
all
kinds of things .... the seating position is farther back, visibility
is
not as good, sticks have to be changed, radios stick out of the panel
because there isn't enough room behind, there's not enough room for
feet on the floor before the bump, torque tube hits the back of legs,
hard to get seats back far enough, windshield hangs out over engine,
lots of stuff ! ... just uncomfortable !

You're right, though - you could lengthen the engine mounts
(have to custom fabricate though) by 3", and re-do the cowling,
and maybe the windshield - but that longer engine mount might be
more subject to bending loads ....

There are several Rebels flying with O-320's, O-360's, and Subaru
EJ-22's with the firewall in the standard position - and most seem
happy. It's really builder's choice - that's what's great about
homebuilts ! :-) (as long as the C of G is within limits !)

......bobp

-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 09:37 pm, Ken wrote:

Isn't that a tad extreme? Several years ago Daryl told us that he
recommended moving the firewall back even for an 0-235.

There are a lot of comments in the archives about needing more than
factory spec up elevator, moving the battery into the tailcone,

adding

ballast, etc. Certainly there are pluss's and minus's of moving it

but

from a balance issue I don't think it is anywhere near as limiting

as

this??? And one can always make the engine mount to move the engine

3"

farther forward.

Ken

Bob Patterson wrote:

Hi Brad !

<ALL> the O-320 mods ??!!! DON'T move the firewall back 3",
or you will be stuck with an O-320 !!!

If you leave the firewall where it belongs, you can use all
the engine choices - from the 912 up !

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
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
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Jim Cole]

Hi Brian, I've been looking into the 914 and 912. From what I can tell
so far the 914 is just under $10,000 MORE, for that
15 additional HP.

Jim

Has anyone looked into the 914UL Turbo? Noticed that the Kitfox series 7 is
using that power plant. I haven't been able to get any of the fuel burn
rates, though.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:29 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Engine Choice


Hi Ben !

You're not all wet, but I think a NEW 912-S is only about $11,000,
and a NEW Lyc. is about $25,000 ! That is NOT expensive, for a modern,
well engineered aircraft engine, with modern metallurgy and electronic
ignition !!! I know of 912s with over 3,600 hrs without overhaul.
(Unlike the 1938 farm tractor technology of a Lyc. ...)

An OLD Lyc. is just a money pit - you never know when it's going
to bite you ! Cylinders crack - especially after about 3,000 hrs,
and there's no way of knowing how many hours are on your 'rebuilt'
cylinders .... about $1,800 a pop (or crack ! ;-) ) hereabouts !
I don't know about prices your way, but here, a rebuilt O-320 will
run between 19,000 and 21,000 CDN ... the days of $5,000 engines
are loooong gone ! :-)

Even with all those mods, your old Lyc. will burn a solid 8 gph -
mine went to 11 gph on the test stand ! (And some oil !)
Also, the Lyc. wants 80 octane leaded gas, which no longer exists,
so uses 100 LL, which soon will disappear - and, if you run mogas,
(which is going to be difficult, 'cause you can't run alcohol,
and everybody is trying to add at least 10% alcohol, even though
it's bad science ....) - you will have to buy expensive additives
to lube the valve seats !

The 912 was designed from scratch for mogas, and our trusty
912 burned 3 gph, dropping to about 2 1/2 in winter, for over 1,000 hours,
and no oil ! Maintenance is just routine spark plugs and air filters.

The rock solid reliability of the 912, plus the sprightly performance
and handling it gave the Rebel, are the reasons I want to go back to it !

.....bobp

-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 03:44 pm, bransom@dcsol.com wrote:

Pretty interesting to see these preferences for the 912S and XP-360. They

would result in fairly different airplanes -- one easy on the gas, the

other

on steroids. Funny too Bob, you're heading back to nearly the Rebel you
started with (+20 horses), right? Coupla other thoughts:

I think it fair to say too that the 912S ain't cheap in the first place.
I like to think a 320 could be rebuilt and some of the efficiency and

weight

saving items (lite alternator, LSE, Ellison carb, Prince prop -- adding up

to

160+hp w/out high compression), for equal or less than a new 912S. And,

an

0320 could be driven slowly most of the time at 7gph instead of 912S

@5gph,

so not too huge a gas budget difference, especially for someone like me

who

will probably stay in the 50-100 hours flying per year. Am I all wet on

this

line of thought?
-Ben/ 496R



-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://www.dcsol.com/login
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
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
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[bransom]

I got a price from LEAF -- $13,749 base price for the 912-S-UL.
WRT 914, gad, way beyond my $ and still then only 115hp for 5 minutes.

I did my pilot training in a Grumman Cheetah with mid-time 0320 and high
compression pistons (160hp). I consistently got about 7.5gph, and that was
unleaned, typical mix of what you do in flight training. XC was about the
same. I have little experience but would think an 0320 burning more than 8.5
or 9 has issues that need a look-see. (yeah, and that will be expensive! :-
/ )

As Walter suggests, mission is the first part to figure out. I know I want
the HP as I live next door to the Sierras (and admittedly want the ego
boost). No denying the 912S or XP360 look to be great options at each end.

One of the holes in my logic was the bit about used cylinders and heads on a
rebuild. Right Bob, those aren't necessarily going to last just cuz they're
cleaned up and inspected! I'm still interested in an 0320 tho -- will look
at the reality of how that prices out when the time comes. I'm under the
impression that flying with mogas in these is fine in the summer as long as
the plane is really using the gas instead of letting it go stale. (A couple
friends argue that ethanol is not illegal in Experimentals. Carb ice not
much of a problem with this engine and my local area. Not to be taken too
lightly tho!) Knowledgable people I've talked to hate what AV gas does to
their engines, especially after tear down and see what a mess the lead
leaves. They argue ideal would be mogas most of the time, avgas every 5th
fill up, or something like that. Even 912 recommends premium (auto) or
100LL. Perhaps this all bumps up the merit of Gesoco's R-263 -- it being all
brand new stuff and hopefuly moderate price, HP, and low weight. By the time
I'm ready, more engine choices will likely be available. :)
Thanks for the feedback,
-Ben






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

[Aurele Lavigne]

Bob, was talking to Rotech Research in last week or so regarding pricing on
912S. I assume the price you quoted was US, cause the price I got was about
$18,300 plus taxes and of course, did not include the tuned exhaust or air
box Rotech claims are both required to reach the 100hp output.

If you know where I can get a 912S for $11,000 CDN, please e-mail me
offflist ASAP.

Thanks, Aurele


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Patterson" <beep@sympatico.ca>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Engine Choice

Hi Ben !

You're not all wet, but I think a NEW 912-S is only about $11,000,
and a NEW Lyc. is about $25,000 ! That is NOT expensive, for a modern,
well engineered aircraft engine, with modern metallurgy and electronic
ignition !!! I know of 912s with over 3,600 hrs without overhaul.
(Unlike the 1938 farm tractor technology of a Lyc. ...)

An OLD Lyc. is just a money pit - you never know when it's going
to bite you ! Cylinders crack - especially after about 3,000 hrs,
and there's no way of knowing how many hours are on your 'rebuilt'
cylinders .... about $1,800 a pop (or crack ! ;-) ) hereabouts !
I don't know about prices your way, but here, a rebuilt O-320 will
run between 19,000 and 21,000 CDN ... the days of $5,000 engines
are loooong gone ! :-)

Even with all those mods, your old Lyc. will burn a solid 8 gph -
mine went to 11 gph on the test stand ! (And some oil !)
Also, the Lyc. wants 80 octane leaded gas, which no longer exists,
so uses 100 LL, which soon will disappear - and, if you run mogas,
(which is going to be difficult, 'cause you can't run alcohol,
and everybody is trying to add at least 10% alcohol, even though
it's bad science ....) - you will have to buy expensive additives
to lube the valve seats !

The 912 was designed from scratch for mogas, and our trusty
912 burned 3 gph, dropping to about 2 1/2 in winter, for over 1,000
hours,
and no oil ! Maintenance is just routine spark plugs and air filters.

The rock solid reliability of the 912, plus the sprightly performance
and handling it gave the Rebel, are the reasons I want to go back to it !

.....bobp

-------------------------------orig.-------------------------
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 03:44 pm, bransom@dcsol.com wrote:

Pretty interesting to see these preferences for the 912S and XP-360.
They
would result in fairly different airplanes -- one easy on the gas, the

other

on steroids. Funny too Bob, you're heading back to nearly the Rebel you
started with (+20 horses), right? Coupla other thoughts:

I think it fair to say too that the 912S ain't cheap in the first place.
I like to think a 320 could be rebuilt and some of the efficiency and

weight

saving items (lite alternator, LSE, Ellison carb, Prince prop -- adding
up

to

160+hp w/out high compression), for equal or less than a new 912S. And,

an

0320 could be driven slowly most of the time at 7gph instead of 912S

@5gph,

so not too huge a gas budget difference, especially for someone like me

who

will probably stay in the 50-100 hours flying per year. Am I all wet on

this

line of thought?
-Ben/ 496R



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





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005

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

[Drew Dalgleish]

I remember he told Jack to move it back 2" for the O-290 (which

turned
out to be heavier than an O-320 ...).

I was told to move mine back 1 1/2" for an 0-290. I asked how far if I used
a lightweight starter,alternator and a warp drive prop. Then I was told
that should be OK with the firewall where it is.
Drew





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

[carol and murray cherkas]

Gentlemen:

I have an 0-320. As suggested by MAM I moved my firewall back 3".

Everything that has been said certainly has some merit however my plane
is a pleasure to fly not cramped for space. flight controls are
comfortable to operate, full deflection of control stick is not a
problem in all directions. As for flight characteristics the rebel is
known to be a little light on the tail. My battery and ELT are in the
tail. When landing you have to make sure you get the tail down which is
not a problem even though it is light back there. I have spoken to other
rebel owners that have not cut the firewall back and they do not like
landing as the tail is too light. I'm sure there is also less stress on
the firewll with the 3" cut back which is why MAM suggested this in the
first place.As far as loading is concerned you will find that this is
not a problem if you take the time to do a weight and balance the worst
is low fuel and a light pilot. Carrying baggage till the cows come home
is not a problem.(the cows are heavy). FWIW

Murray



-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 a maintenance nightmare!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Cole" <jcole@rangroup.com>
To: <rebel-builders@dcsol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Engine Choice

Hi Brian, I've been looking into the 914 and 912. From what I can tell
so far the 914 is just under $10,000 MORE, for that
15 additional HP.

Jim

Has anyone looked into the 914UL Turbo? Noticed that the Kitfox series 7

is

using that power plant. I haven't been able to get any of the fuel burn
rates, though.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: mike.davis@dcsol.com [mailto:mike.davis@dcsol.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:29 PM
To: rebel-builders@dcsol.com
Subject: Re: Engine Choice

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