why are all J200 19- ? (?)

[RFguy]

Seems 200 is a good first plane, and 19- ripe for experimental work. (aside from 19- LSA, SK)

Why are all the J200s I can find all 19- ? were they all factory kits ?

Can someone please point me to a POH for the J200, Jab site only lists current stuff.

 

-glen.

[horsefeathers]

How's about this one

 

https://www.aviationclassifieds.com.au/listing/5737

 

[facthunter]

Hasn't been used much. Nev

[Kenlsa]

Technically only the original builder of a 19 registered and built aircraft can modify it as they are the one who "certified the build" to RAaus when they submitted the compliance paper work.. Unless you can convince the original owner to modify it you are stuck.

You can not learn to fly in it as you did not build it for your own "educational purposes". You have to have all training in a 55, 23 or 24 reg aircraft.

I know.......who is going to know? but these things have a habit of biting you somewhere down the track. I have seen the process when the question arises of unauthorized modification rears its ugly head.

Ken

[Kenlsa]

The J200/400 were more aimed at the VH market as they suffer from higher stall (over 45kts) speed and lower useful load of about 195 Kg when built as an RAaus A/c at 544Kg.

So the 230 was produced, more wing area, to get to 45 kts and 600Kg. I do realise that there are some old J400 converted to RAaus and sneaked in at 600kg but they were self certified and may not actually pass the stall speed at Max AUW if ever tested.

It is not a perfect world.

Ken

[RFguy]

Technically only the original builder of a 19 registered and built aircraft can modify it as they are the one who "certified the build" to RAaus when they submitted the compliance paper work.. Unless you can convince the original owner to modify it you are stuck.

You can not learn to fly in it as you did not build it for your own "educational purposes". You have to have all training in a 55, 23 or 24 reg aircraft.

I know.......who is going to know? but these things have a habit of biting you somewhere down the track. I have seen the process when the question arises of unauthorized modification rears its ugly head.

Ken

HI Ken.

Yes that's what I understood from the RAaus technical manual which has great slabs of this in boilerplate.... You have to build it yourself. Thanks for confirming my understanding. There is something about builder / owner variations but this was even more murky. Yes who is going to know....until there is an accident....

 

I'll end up getting a 24- J120 for starters most likely. affordable and will help me get some feeling for what I really want to do. Seems I cannot get away from having to build a kit, and get tit RAaus authorized and signed off for op in CTA. and 500-1000 hours to build an aircraft I do not have for the stepping stone to modify aircraft for engine instrumentation purposes . "Modify" of course is a variable definition. Spock would not like that.

[RFguy]

J230 is a top aircraft in paper.... (an under loaded J430) .

[Kenlsa]

RF.

I can recommend the J120 as a good aircraft. I built an SP 500 that was the kit built version of it.

At the time I was looking what to build, 2004, the j200 had a useful load of about 195 kg, the very new j160 had 230 kg but was a little unknown at the time as it was the prototype, and my SP 500 has 223 kg. I built mine light.

Ken

[RFguy]

Thanks Ken. Seems a good start. Ojh the SP500 was the precursor kit to the 120 eh ? There are a few for sale around the place. I'd probably want to put a new Gen4 motor in it. as step1. Maybe. depends what is in it I guess.

J170, a few of those for sale, but seems a little too much like a trainer, not enough thrust with the 2200 for those large wings for XC cruising. Seems people choose J160s partly for that reason.

Or, I could consider non Jabiru. Jab has good doco, manuals are all good, and there is an enormous collective community experience with them. and they are an aussie company. plenty available used.

 

I'd be prepared to look at others.

[facthunter]

The six is a smooth engine. Most 6's are much smoother than fours. Yes it does matter. A 230 is not the worst aeroplane in the world. Keep the idle speed where it should be or you can float a bit. Nev

[Kenlsa]

RF,

With a Jab, any parts needed are delivered with in 3 working days if need be, and they are always available on the phone to clear up any enquires. There are about 1500 of us here in Oz.

Ken

[RFguy]

Ken, and that's a good reason. Nev- yeah I presume similar things apply to inline 6s versus inline 4s as flat 6s versus flat 4s WRT balance. I vaguely remember the Mitsubuishi 2.6L inline 4 had some balance weights on a third balance shaft to improve that big pot 4. At 3000 rpm I could balance a 50 cent coin on the top of the rocker cover of my Datsun L26 6 cly motor.... - Glen

[facthunter]

Bit to do with pistons acting as a flywheel. On a 4 twice per rev ALL pistons are stopped. Nev

[RFguy]

Got it. Last night I did 'a bit of reading' of a few doctorial theses of mechanical engineers looking at torsional vibrations in ICEs (and how it tells quite a story)

 

More on that later in the "advanced instrumention" thread when I get around to it. -glen

[facthunter]

A nine cylinder RADIAL is excellent in that regard and also the crankpin is more loaded with the throttle closed, (especially at high rpm's) than on power. The big ones none the less have several "don't operate) rev bands you avoid..Nev

[RFguy]

I did a bit of reading on balance, vibration modes and forces in reciprocating ICEs........ There are plenty of good advantages for the flat opposed that I read....And flat four is much much more preferable than inline 4cyl. In fact inline 4 cylinder are terrible beasts. 5 cylinder inline is a useful improvement and has some useful characteristics. No wankels. Although some wankels are used for power generators I read driving motors for vehicles

[RFguy]

The J170 really needs a bit more thrust. 80hp is a bit light, 120 is unnecessary. 100 is nice, so 5 cylinders . ha ha. different crankshaft of course.

glen

[facthunter]

There aren't many flat four car engines if you exclude Subaru. They are much harder than in 4 in lines to work on and early on were very subject to crankshaft breakages, VW, Borgward, Jowett etc. Worked on them all and the firms VW rally car broke a crank about every second rally. Nev

[RFguy]

There aren't many flat four car engines if you exclude Subaru. They are much harder than in 4 in lines to work on and early on were very subject to crankshaft breakages, VW, Borgward, Jowett etc. Worked on them all and the firms VW rally car broke a crank about every second rally. Nev

flat 6 vs inline 6 I see has substantially shorter crankshaft , that's got to be good for construction. although same number of bearing journals , or less, I'll have to look.... I am remembering the days of using plasti-gauge to measure bearing clearances. and locking the doors when I was assembling engines.

[Deskpilot]

The Citroen flat four rarely gets mentioned with regard to aircraft but it is a really smooth, high revving engine. Loved to work mine though the gears in it's GS form.

[RFguy]

back to the J200 and the 19-x question.

By the book, if you build a 19-x, once you sell it, the advantages that you had been the builder would seem to be lost, which would limit their appeal to some buyers. Is my interpretation of the situation close to the mark ?

I see ROTEC are building 7 and 9 cyl radials and well priced. I gather not mfr / maintenance cost effective compared to the flat 6 jab ? ooh I see they are heavy.

[facthunter]

They are always going to be heavy especially with integral reduction gear and they were built as a nostalgia thing Bit of a mixed bag but they look good and sound OK. That's a while ago and I don't know how things are now. Werner gave radials a go too, but they seem to have faded somewhat also. Nev

[RFguy]

direct drive no good at common prop RPMs ?

[facthunter]

It would have been a reasonable option but as it is it's more versatile if a little large for most of RAAus planes. VH exp is always an option for you. I'd fly lots of old unreliable stuff willingly, but not in places or in a way I'd allow it to kill me (or someone else) IF it stops. Nev

[Matty]

Here's an interesting summary I found a little while back.