denmit Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 For my fellow RV-12 builders - seen this? http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=66354&page=11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Not if you want to register it as an LSA at 600 KG you don't! Put in the 2200 and it's a 544 KG aircraft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yeah been watching that thread, be nice to have some choice. With a bit of luck the 600/544kg split will be academic soon - although I won't be holding my breathe, we seem to be be very far down CASA's priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 the forward mounting position would enable you to "keep away from Jabiru engines" and still use one. If the factory approve this engine wouldn't the 600 Kgs apply? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashley Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 i think i will stick with the rotax and have a tbo of 2000 hours not jabs 500 hours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denmit Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 G'day again all - I'm not advocating or recommending - just passing on what I chanced upon on VAF forums. It is true that Jab engines continue to have reliability reputational challenges (if I can spin it that way) and the shorter TBO is certainly an issue too. I'm building AB(E) and will register VH so the MTOW is not an issue for me. I do wonder though, given the preponderance of Jabirus in the training and recreational fleet, if the actual reliability data (as opposed to opinion) bear out the checkered reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I like to think I'm fairly open-minded on the Jabiru question, but there is more to this. The RV is a plane that can get along. The Rotax has the facility of allowing a variable pitch prop to be fairly easily installed. I think that the Rotax is the "standard" engine for that aircraft. You may consider the resale value too. I don't at this point of time know what the "TBO" for the Jab is but it is a question of whether it gets there,, most times. Most problems would be fixed with a "top" overhaul at an appropriate time and attention to temperature and mixture considerations. Rotax have no valve life or head problems and a high reputation for reliability generally. You pays your money and takes your chances. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 The RV-12 will perform really well if you keep at least 100HP up front. I'd hesitate to use a Jab 2200 because it's only 85HP - apart from the reliability issues. Remember that in Australia we are operating at 10-15deg above standard most of the year....and only HP helps! In the USA, the RV-12 is limited in performance by the max 120 kts rule, ie, 120KTAS at 75% power. That's why it is held back by VANS' recommendation on propellors. In Australia, you can use a VP or CS prop, and get more TAS out of it at altitude....probably >120KTAS is achievable. I think that VANS will soon come out with a recommendation for the Lycoming 0-233, or IO-233 engine, and that's where I'd be looking. Why..........VANS loves Lycomings, he has an OEM deal with them, and they are a known product with a 2400 TBO, and I feel comfortable behind one too. happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now