Trying to decide which one to build

[Tasmag]

Hi all

 

I am currently trying to decide which craft to build early in the new year (Hopefully)

 

I was previously set on a J430 for the carrying capacity and range but the closure of CAMIT and the introduction of a new 3300 next year had me looking around at alternatives.

 

One that I found was the SP4000 from Lightwing, not many flying so difficult to get some real world performance figures. I have spoken to one builder from the forum but he has a much bigger engine than I would like.

 

I am really after something economical to fly - 120Kt at 25lph is my yardstick at the moment.

 

Had initially thought that an o320 (160hp) would be ok in the airframe, but maybe it needs a little more poke to get of the ground in a reasonable distance?

 

The 0320 would probably use a little less than 35lph at 75%, but was thinking that at 55% it might still pull the SP4000 along at 120.

 

The site list take off distance as 600m, but another source (Youtube) from ALW states that it needs 800m with 180hp.

 

Anyone have any knowledge/thoughts of the airframe or any thoughts on it or engine choices.

 

Mike

 

 

[planesmaker]

Mike, consider a j430 with a rotax? A few of them around now, good performance with a good strong airframe. I have a 914 powered j400, what a good aircraft. 115kt@ 17lt/hr. It will lift more than a c172, flies faster, much better climb, all on half the fuel! PM me if you want to know more. Tom

 

 

[rankamateur]

915i would be even better, would need a smooth paint job though, to make drool cleanup easier!

 

 

[Downunder]

Perhaps the j430 with a UL Power 6 cyl (up to 200hp available) or even a 130hp 4 cyl.

 

http://ulpower.com

 

 

 

[Raytol]

Hi Mike,

 

Why don't you look at a Wedgetail/ Morgan Cougar? www.morganaeroworks.com.au

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi allI am currently trying to decide which craft to build early in the new year (Hopefully)

 

I was previously set on a J430 for the carrying capacity and range but the closure of CAMIT and the introduction of a new 3300 next year had me looking around at alternatives.

 

One that I found was the SP4000 from Lightwing, not many flying so difficult to get some real world performance figures. I have spoken to one builder from the forum but he has a much bigger engine than I would like.

 

I am really after something economical to fly - 120Kt at 25lph is my yardstick at the moment.

 

Had initially thought that an o320 (160hp) would be ok in the airframe, but maybe it needs a little more poke to get of the ground in a reasonable distance?

 

The 0320 would probably use a little less than 35lph at 75%, but was thinking that at 55% it might still pull the SP4000 along at 120.

 

The site list take off distance as 600m, but another source (Youtube) from ALW states that it needs 800m with 180hp.

 

Anyone have any knowledge/thoughts of the airframe or any thoughts on it or engine choices.

 

Mike

Check out the ATEC Zephyr (advanced kit) much lower stall (35 knots) & faster cruise than a Jab, will actually do -

 

• 100 knots @ under 13 LPH (1 pilot) with a 912 ULS on 95 RON.
   
   
  
• If you want to burn 18+ LPH you will easily do 120 knots.
   
   
  
• PLUS PLUS - the 912 only requires an oil change every 100 hours
   
   
  

 

 

This aircraft is quite competitively priced with a Jab, but if you want to spend more $$$ you could speck it up with a 912IS for even better performance/economy.

 

Much much better performance (132 knots) would be the new ATEC Fayeta NG (but its not a kit)

 

 

[Yenn]

For all round reliability you can't go past the O320 in my opinion and if it couldn't pull an SP4000 along at 120 kts I would be very surprised. At 30 l.p.h. it pulls my RV4 at 140 kts and climbs to 9500' in just over 8 minutes from start of takeoff. Doesn't use oil either between changes.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Yep Lycoming (0320 & the rest) make a wonderfully reliable old fashioned donk. Can't argue with the reliability or the horrific acquisition and the terrifying on-going running cost.

 

Just because the Yanks seem to dominate the aviation world shouldn't make us blind to more efficient, quieter, less polluting engines and air-frames from other parts of the world. A Pipistral Virus SW will equal or better your RV4 in most parameters and do it all on the "smell of an oily rag" - as will a host of other modern small aircraft mostly powered by Rotax 912 & 4's.

 

You must indeed be a wealthy man.

 

I am but a poor boy and a Rotax (which halls my ATEC Zephy up @ 1,000 + ft/min & gets me off the ground in 100m with full fuel, on grass) will do me just fine.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Im hearing you loud and clear, i have an almost perfect aircraft, except lack of luggage space. the big jabs really appeal, but if you do want to go into CTA than this presents a huge problem. If the engine issues persist, the best intentions might still prevemt CTA acesss. A rotax in a jab also prevents CTA access.

 

To me the perfect aircraft is a jab with a rotax, or a jab with a parachute thats allowed into CTA. But the rotax prevents CTA and the parachut chews up useable weight.

 

A few questions to ask yourself that may help.

 

What IS your typical pilot and pax weight?

 

What type of range will you need for what you intend to do?

 

What luggage will you need?

 

do you ever want to lease it out?

 

Do you want visibility in flight or visibily below? I have a low wing, its brilliant in turns and flies and lands like gold, but they get very hot in summer and they are poor for looking at whales or features below you.

 

Where you can get hangarage, is a low wing or high wing more likely to fit? The opposite of whats in location is more likely to fit.

 

If CTA doesnt worry you then my choice would be a jab with a chute. Fore high cruise speed, good useable wieght, amazing airframe and huge luggage space that will take light weight toys, eg: snow, bikes etc.,..

 

 

[Downunder]

PLUS PLUS - the 912 only requires an oil change every 100 hours

Do you really change your oil at 100hrs?

 

Everyone I know (myself included) changes at 50.

 

Some leave the oil filter to 100, most put a new filter on.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The Rotax recommendation is to change the engine oil every hundred hours if you use mogas. If you use avgas the recommendation is change it more often. The local flying school uses only mogas and 100 hr oil change and generally get to TBO. I have no idea why anyone would not follow the maker's recommendation.

 

 

[facthunter]

Maximum oil change periods are only for "ideal" conditions. Not everyone has those and less hours might be appropriate in many cases. If you are going for them you would be advised to make sure your oil regularly runs at 95 degrees C and/or does long trips and never uses avgas and is the right oil type..Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Im hearing you loud and clear, i have an almost perfect aircraft, except lack of luggage space. the big jabs really appeal, but if you do want to go into CTA than this presents a huge problem. If the engine issues persist, the best intentions might still prevemt CTA acesss. A rotax in a jab also prevenpts CTA access.To me the perfect aircraft is a jab with a rotax, or a jab with a parachute thats allowed into CTA. But the rotax prevents CTA and the parachut chews up useable weight.

 

A few questions to ask yourself that may help.

 

What IS your typical pilot and pax weight?

 

What type of range will you need for what you intend to do?

 

What luggage will you need?

 

do you ever want to lease it out?

 

Do you want visibility in flight or visibily below? I have a low wing, its brilliant in turns and flies and lands like gold, but they get very hot in summer and they are poor for looking at whales or features below you.

 

Where you can get hangarage, is a low wing or high wing more likely to fit? The opposite of whats in location is more likely to fit.

 

If CTA doesnt worry you then my choice would be a jab with a chute. Fore high cruise speed, good useable wieght, amazing airframe and huge luggage space that will take light weight toys, eg: snow, bikes etc.,..

Why do you say that a rotax prevents access to CTA?

 

My understanding it has no effect.

 

If it's registered as RAAus it just have to have transponder and radio but the pilot has to be endorsed or have a PPL . If it's registered as GA experimental - no problem again.

 

Can't realistically fit a parachute to a Jab. I have done extensive research and liaison with Jabiru and other Jab owners on doing this. No reliable hard point for attachment. No work done by anyone ( Jabiru or others that I could find) to determine the positioning of the shrouds for stable suspension, descent or safe landing.

 

It turns out it is not as simple as just bolt the lines to somewhere in the cabin. Have to consider weights dispersion through the hull - otherwise the fuselage can break up at the first opening of the chute. Then have to consider fuselage angle on descent which changes stability on descent so shroud attachement strong points have to be in position to support optimal attitude. In in the current jab fuselage there aren't any. So to change the Jab fuselage to suit would make a whole new lot of costly testing etc. essentially a new airframe. So Jab have said "no chutes on our aircraft"

 

 

[Tasmag]

Firstly, thanks everyone for their responses and input.

 

The Rotax in a J430 is a good option in most regards, except the price. The quote I have puts the engine at pretty close to $40 000, which has real potential to overcapitalise the airframe (IMO).

 

The UL power and D motor, look like an option, but similar to the Rotax they seem pretty expensive.

 

Yenn, I am interested in your experience with the O320, in particular what percentage of power are you pulling for 140Kts and 30Lph?

 

I had thought an option was to look for a used O320 with 1000 or so left to run and then I can upgrade to an O360 if I ever wanted to. (What are the chances of picking up a used O320 for around $12000)

 

Skippydiesel, The ATEC Zephyer looks to be only available as a two seater, I am looking at 4 seat options at the moment for the reasons below.

 

The 4 seat requirement is mainly so that I can carry camping gear etc for longer trips, plus I'm not a small person and my flying partner is similarly built so most two seaters don't give us the range we would like when we add even basic gear.

 

We have done a few long trips in a J170, but range hurts us for some areas, most recently Mitchell Plateau where we had to bail because we couldn't fill the tanks to capacity.

 

The Cougar 2 does looks like a good option, thanks Ray. You can probably look forward to a few more emails picking your brain about it!

 

Anyone have any input on running costs associated with the O320 in an experimental airframe given that I intend to do my own maintenance? I suppose that any spares required would generally be certified and therefore expensive.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Sling 4 may be worth a look if you need good range and carrying capacity. Probably not cheap though.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Yenn]

I cruise the 0-320 at about 2200rpm, not sure what %age power that is but it is 160hp @ 2600.

 

I have no worries with it, runs nicely, starts easily, uses no oil, but the fuel consumption could be better. It was also less expensive than a Rotax, from memory A$25000 in 2011.

 

It may be possible to get a used 0 -320, but they are fairly rare. Plenty of them about, but not at low prices. Then you have the problem of not knowing what you are getting.

 

I put a used Jab 1600 in my Corby when I built it and had nothing but trouble. I had a cylinder head gasket blow on first flight as I was doing a go around. It dropped a rocker cover, dumping oil onto the exhaust and I disappeared in a cloud of smoke on flight 2.

 

From then on it leaked oil from the push rod tubes and it was a bit low on power on hot days. Not a good advert for buying a used engine. Luckily I got a good trade in from Rod at Jabiru and got a really good zero timed 2200 Jab.

 

If you get a used Lycoming, just think about the cost of the necessary spares and work to bring it up to scratch.

 

 

[facthunter]

Lycoming would like to get all the old time engines out of the air and have a generous exchange scheme. When you buy an RV kit you get a new Lyc at a very good price. Some older motors just cannot be rebuilt to a good standard at an economic price. A new engine will do well 0ver 2,000 hours. The mags might have a 5 year inspection but I can't imagine you would be up for much maintenance, with a new motor. They are wider and nowhere as smooth as a 6 cylinder Jabiru but extra reliable. If you are going for an older motor check out the availability of parts Cylinders etc as often there is a big price disparity between some models depending on the rarity and other factors, (like whether the cylinders are nitrided or not.). Engine mounts vary too. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Tasmag - Are you going to register this aircraft (to be) under RAA or GA?

 

I ask because under current RAA you are limited to max 600 kg TO for most aircraft (a few a little less and B parachute equipped a little more). True RAA may be aspiring to higher TO limits, but that how things stand at the moment.

 

For load carrying capacity, whats most important is the difference between empty weight and max TO weight.

 

I believe most, if not all, of the aircraft that may be approved for 4 seats under GA, have very poor load/range capacity, when registered as a two seat RAA aircraft .

 

I have carried, on several occassions, equipent/supplies for a 3 day/2 night camp for myself, better 1/2, and full fuel. True we are both verticaly chanllanged (good things come in small packages) so this does help. So even a two seater (Zephyr - well south of 300 kg empty) has the space/volume for all your gear.

 

Unfortunately bigger people (x2), who want to go touring/camping, may find that almost all RAA aircraft will suffer from diminished range, when fuel is left off to stay within TO weight limits.

 

I regret saying this - but to get the speed, carrying capacity and range you are looking for may force you into GA

 

 

[Tasmag]

Skippydiesel, yes I should have mentioned I was always planning GA, need it to fly out of CTR here in Launceston and the extra carrying capacity.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I once read that most homebuilds are finished by owner number 5, and this was my observation.

 

Then came Jabiru, and everyone finishes their project. I remember Rod Stiff complaining that any fool could build one.

 

And so he had to deal with lots of fools.

 

.Now there are matched-hole kits, and I personally would like to have a go at one.

 

Whatever you are seriously considering, take the advice here and go and see some projects before you commit.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Skippydiesel, yes I should have mentioned I was always planning GA, need it to fly out of CTR here in Launceston and the extra carrying capacity.

Oh well ! another pilot lost to RAA.

Bye the way it is likely that you (PPL?) can fly an RAA registered aircraft into/out of CTR but that still doesn't address the "payload".

 

Despite my loyalty to RAA & Rotax engines - I have always lusted after RV's, particularly the 4's & 8's. Along similar lines the Mustang II, very efficient very nice. Going back to Rotax (914) power, the Europa might just get you over the line.

 

 

[diesel]

Most aircraft are assembled now and not built.

 

Cut down a tree and make your own engine convertion. Thats building.

 

Same of course with metal or glass if from raw start.

 

Its still done by several constructors.

 

Chas

 

 

[Nobody]

Consider an rv-9. They have good varying capacity, good efficiency and will cruise about 140knots very economically.

 

A few SAAA guys here in sydney have recently rebuilt Lycoming engines for their RVs. They buy a core and get a LAME to help take it apart. They then send the parts out for inspection and machining, buy new experimental cylinders, sell the old ones to someone overhauling a certified engine and help the LAME put it back together in a weekend. The engine was working out about $18k

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Most aircraft are assembled now and not built.

Yup, great ain't it, more registered homebuilts flying than ever before.

 

.Now there are matched-hole kits, and I personally would like to have a go at one.

I decided to do my tail completely match-hole'd for accuracy, so damn easy, less than an hour to pop it together, but I have to watch the 51% rule too.

 

 

[rankamateur]

I decided to do my tail completely match-hole'd for accuracy, so damn easy, less than an hour to pop it together, but I have to watch the 51% rule too.

Doesn't take the CNC machines long to punch out the parts and fold them, so unless you are very quick, I wouldn't worry about the 51% rule, it takes nearly as long to deburr the parts for a nice finish as the machines take to spit them out.