Now that PL-9 Stork is cool! Did you build that NineThreeKilo?

We just finished a 701dboston. Pictures mean more than anything. Here is a link to our entire builders log.

http://www.eaa839.com/chapter_project/chapter_project_album.htm

It came out great and we had fun. However, I would recommend the 750 which came out after we started the 701. It is bigger, much easier to build and will have a more finished appearance.

Be happy to answer questions.

Thank you all for your help so far in this quest for the perfect kitplane. First off I want to thank Zane for having this forum--some of the others I would have been afraid to ask the question to see what responses I would get back. You all have been positive and very helpful. I will follow up with some of you with questions. I had not looks at a Rans s7 so that was helpful. One thing I would like to ask is how much in tooling will these kits take--such as do I need a hoist? etc.? Are there any good books that would help me in the construction of a plane? I have done limited building but there are guys here that have built kitfox, RV's and Hatz so there is some help available. I found that I am about 1 hour froj UT99 so I will plan on flying down there one day. I do appreciate the information and I am sure in about 3 or 4 years I will be asking about engines--or do I need to decide that at the start of the project. Again thanks for the responses. Dan

Skystrider wrote:Now that PL-9 Stork is cool! Did you build that NineThreeKilo?
.

I wish! just a random pic, if I were to build a STOL type that would hands down be it.

One of the things that has not been mentioned is what engine choices you have with any particular kit, the cost of the engine, and how the engine's reliability affects the type of flying you want to do. If you build a 701, there is a fairly strong push towards the 912 Rotax (or the Jabiru 2200), because according to their original specs an O-200 is too heavy. They designed the 750 so it fits the O-200 (and other engines slightly larger than the Rotax like the Jabiru 3300).

If i have him ID'd correctly, 'dirtstrip' on this forum owned a 701 with a really interesting engine, the Italian Simonini Victor 2. This is a 2 stroke engine with a fantastic power to weight ratio. It is my understanding that this engine never had the typical reliability issues that gave other 2 strokes a bad name.

The Highlander is a perfect fit for the larger Jabiru, it may or may not have the capability to handle an O-200 weight. The Kitfox/Avid and all of their derivatives are severely weight limited for the engine, you have less choices of engine if you go that direction.

The reason I keep mentioning the O-200 is because it is close to bullet proof and it is just about the CHEAPEST option. Although it is not a straight apples to apples comparison, the fact is that a used mid-time O-200 can be bought for $5000-6000 and give you a very very reliable 1000+ hours of flying way out in the back country where there may not be any mechanics or spare parts available. Buying a 912, Jabiru, etc. is going to be a $15-18K purchase (mostly because there are not 100,000 used Jabiru's out there yet). The $10K you might save on buying an engine could pay for some part of your kit.

There are many people who say the Rotax and Jabiru are very reliable and are flying around the world... this is true... but it is very hard to argue with the O-200's record and impossible to argue with the reliability/cost balance of a used one.

So if you make the engine reliability vs. cost balance a significant part of the equation, by my logic you might want to let the O-200 weigh into your decision on which airframes to look at.

EZ,
Yeah that's my 701 on the Zenair alternate engine site. They edited out the fact that it was a 2002 installation and the 4800 price listed then still gets me lots of emails about the Simonini Victor 2. Today the price of the engine has climbed to over 8 grand. I still answer a few inquiries on it every month as I have every one of the several hundred over the last eight years and from countries I can't even spell. I should have worked a deal with the dealer who I referred them to. The weight of the Simonini Victor 2 engine is the same as the 582 Rotax as well as the bolt pattern. 104 lbs with the radiator full and electric start. It was rated at 92hp. Mine was serial #44 and obviously the early model. The advantage is the nicasil coated ceramic cylinder walls that expands at closer to the same rate as its aluminum piston and reduces the likelyhood of cold seizure where the piston expansion out paces the expansion rate of the cast iron cylinder of most other two strokes. Many a two stroker dead sticked it in before learning proper warm ups or that they should never remove the thermostat on their engine. I always thought my Victor 2 was short of the 92 they advertised and not long after mine was flying they increased the displacement to 728cc but still rated it 92. So I believe they have it now. They also make a 102hp model. Their engines are designed for aircraft use from the beginning but they are two stroke and that turns away a lot of pilots and builders.

My 701 was also the early model that was rated 960 gross. Now they are 1100, so there are many more engine choices now than there were then. But that explains my search for the lightest hp/wt ratio. http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo18a.html (nearly mid page)
Engines are a huge decision in homebuilding.

Bill's advice on engine choice is something to consider. I am building a Murphy Rebel and although there are several options available I think the good ol' Lyc. is the most cost effective choice. I have looked at the Rotax, Jabiru etc. I think a guy would be hard pressed to get a new Rotax (100hp) set up FWF for much less than $25,000!!! The Jabiru may come out around $4-5,000 less. This is a big decision, and should be thought of when you are in the beginning phase of looking for a kit. The engine/pro
Granted the Lyc/Cont. will be heavier and burn more fuel but a guy can buy an it awful lot of fuel for the price difference.
WW

Many of the most serious problems with our traditional aircraft engine designs like Continentals and Lycomings come from the fact that they are air-cooled, and suffer from uneven cooling of the cylinders on even the most well-baffled and flow-optimized cowlings. This makes it difficult to optimize mixture and CHT/EGT for all cylinders, meaning one or two are always running cold or hot.

The Rotax 912/914 has liquid cooled heads, which produces a much more even and reliable cooling. Granted, the downside of introducing liquid cooling is another complication, something that can fail in flight, whereas the simplicity of pure air cooling is nice.

The Rotax also has electronic ignition modules, an improvement on breaker point mags in my opinion. It is also lighter weight, accomplishing a better power to weight ration which suits these little bushplanes in this discussion well. But, it runs at higher RPM, and must be geared down, which introduces yet more complexity and the reduced reliability from forces/friction/wear inherent with higher RPM.

I haven't checked out the Jabiru much but my understanding is that it's just a scaled down version of the classic air cooled boxer design that we've had since the 40's.

Personally, I'd love to see a little turbo diesel for the LSA market. Jet-A and diesel are readily available and diesels with FADEC can be super optimized and also quite reliable from the greasy, lubricative nature of the fuel. But, weight is an issue.

Zane, I use to have a late style VW beetle turbo diesel. It ran great and it had I think 98 hp. I once looked up the weight of it thinking airplane, but don't remember how much. Seemed like it cruised at 70 mph at around 1900 rpm, but to get max power, it went to mid 4K's I think. I can't believe no one has used that engine in a plane.

I was following the [url]Wilksch[/url] when I was building my Europa, but they just never got it fully commercialized...like so many motors.

EZ's comments on cost are probably about right - and the Jab is almost as much as the Rotax now. But - its (the Rotax) proven, low maint., efficient, still the lightest, and oh so smooth.

The Viking (Honda Fit Motor) looks interesting. Eggenfellner is doing it. But again, brand new. But Honda makes good motors.

the UL Power 350i 130hp is just finidng its way into planes - one in a highlander I know. I think there have been some issues finding a good match on the prop and cooling, but its a direct drive, FADEC fuel injected.

BTW, I know off topic now, but I'll be testing a new Rotax/Jab series Prop with Craig Catto later this month - Catto Props are pretty amazing in the RV, Canard and Reno world - we'll see how they do on a Rotax 912S!

If you are new to aircraft building or maintenance I would look for as some other have said a complete kit. I am scratch building a Bearhawk and lost track of how many hours I have spent figuring out which bolts, nuts, hoses, cables, rivits, etc, etc to get, only to find out when I get it the bolt I ordered is 1/8" to short or it doesn't have a hole for a cotter pin, you get the idea.

If you plan to use a Lyc. or Cont. engine you can find awsome deals on an engine that will run for many years before you need to spend any money on it. For instance I found an 0-540 with only a couple hunred hours SFOH and was able to get it for basically the core charge because the guy just wanted it gone. Buying anything used though you have to take the sellers word as to the condition and don't know if he or she is truthfull until you run it. Frome what I've seen used Rotax's still bring a fair amount, that is if you can find one.

If it were me looking for a 2 place I think I would get a Zenith 750 because all the holes are drilled, comes with most of the hardware, you don't need a second person to drive rivits, it was designed around the 0-200 which you can find cheap, and you can get FWF kit so you don't have to waste time figuring out what you need. Plus if you want to get in the air fast you don't even have to paint it. I think a resourcefull builder could get one flying for $30,000-35,000.

patrol guy wrote:Zane, I use to have a late style VW beetle turbo diesel. It ran great and it had I think 98 hp. I once looked up the weight of it thinking airplane, but don't remember how much. Seemed like it cruised at 70 mph at around 1900 rpm, but to get max power, it went to mid 4K's I think. I can't believe no one has used that engine in a plane.

In Europe, the direct injected VW diesels can be chipped to produce something like 140 hp. It is a 1.9l engine, but I don't know what it weighs. Parts are cast iron and parts are aluminum.

tom

Hey, interesting timing! This was posted on supercub.org by Dave Prizio Kitplanes. He came up last year and flew my S-7S. Would be cool to see it in Kitplanes!

Anyway, he has a TX Sport Cub with a Jab, and will be comparing all the Cub-types (e.g. Tandems). Might be helpful, at least for the tandem types.


Cub Kit Comparison
I have an article coming out in the March 2011 Kitplanes where I compare light sport Cub kits, including the Carbon Cub EX, the Texas Sport Cub (Legend), the Wag Aero Sport Trainer, and the RANS S-7S. I hope you all get a chance to read it and enjoy it.

With that project completed I would like to do a similar article comparing the larger PA-18 type Super Cub kits. These are the kits I have on my list so far: Carbon Cub EX (again), Back Country Cub (formerly Smith Cub and Turbine Cub of Wyoming), Bearhawk Patrol, and the Bush Wacker Cub. What have I missed?

I want to limit it to tandem 2-seat, fabric covered, bush-type planes with 160-210 horsepower. That would leave out 4-place and side-by-side planes.

Besides adding to my list if I have missed something, I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has built one of these kitplanes. Such things as quality and completeness of kit, quality of instructions/plans, quality of service from kit manufacturer, builder group support, etc. are of great interest to me.

Thanks for your help.

Cub Kit Comparison

I'm not on the market for a kitplane.....
But I am ALWAYS on the market for good reading!
Hopefully it is as objective as possible......

lc

Zane wrote: Many of the most serious problems with our traditional aircraft engine designs like Continentals and Lycomings come from the fact that they are air-cooled, and suffer from uneven cooling of the cylinders on even the most well-baffled and flow-optimized cowlings. This makes it difficult to optimize mixture and CHT/EGT for all cylinders, meaning one or two are always running cold or hot.....

For being such old-fangled pieces of junk, the O-200 is a helluva good engine. If you consider the similarity of all of the small Continental 4-bangers, A-65 through O-200, it's hard to argue with about 75 years of success. If you want, you can get electronic ignitions for them, & higher compression pistons for a little more steam. I consider air-cooling a pro, not a con-- ditto for direct drive (no reduction drive/gearbox hassles). For bigger non-LSA airplanes, jump up to the 320 or 360 Lycoming. Old-fangled, true, but time-tested & as close to bullet-proof as you can get.
The alternative engine I like most is the jabiru-- just a pimped out, machined-from-billet old-fangled air cooled flat engine with a trick ignition. Next would be a VW or Corvair-based conversion. You can keep all your 2-strokes, diesels,and/or water-cooled automotive engines.
My two cents anyways.

emflys wrote: ...You should fly down to West Desert Airpark (UT99) outside Fairfield. Mark Pringle at Rocky Mountain Kitplanes is the Rans Dealer, and actually builds a lot of their S-LSA's. He's got a beautiful S7-S on 26" Alaskan Bushwheels and is a super guy...

A couple old guys on my airport bought a Rans S6 from this outfit a few years ago. They did a nice job building it. Not the most stoutly built airplane though- fine for most folks, but I doubt it would hold up to many gravel bar landings.

emflys when you do your supercub review you should include the SQ2 I would like to see a non biased opinion on how it stackes up against the classic cub. All the extra stuff is cool but I dont see any of them folowing pops or the cubdriver guys around.

dboston you need to plan a trip to oshcosh airventure. the hombuilder area is full of kits and people who have built them, well worth the trip if you are serious about building you wont find a higher consintration of kits and knoligable people anywere.

hotrod150 wrote:

emflys wrote: ...You should fly down to West Desert Airpark (UT99) outside Fairfield. Mark Pringle at Rocky Mountain Kitplanes is the Rans Dealer, and actually builds a lot of their S-LSA's. He's got a beautiful S7-S on 26" Alaskan Bushwheels and is a super guy...

A couple old guys on my airport bought a Rans S6 from this outfit a few years ago. They did a nice job building it. Not the most stoutly built airplane though- fine for most folks, but I doubt it would hold up to many gravel bar landings.

I agree. A totally different animal from the S7-S though, which is what we were talking about, the 6 has a aluminum aft fuselage (pretty sure of that anyway), the 7 is ALL chrome moly, and large dia. at that, very stout and proven too. The 6 doesn't turn me on at all so I've never looked into it, and though the models numbers are confusing, the 7 has nothing to do with the 6 most ways, it's not a successor to the 6, totally different model though they share a lot hardware.

You're right, the S6 is a different animal -- a bit dainty, kinda ugly, & other than the tailwheel & the side-by-side seating I didn't care for it. But the West Desert crew did a nice job building it, which was my point. And they're not the only place where you can buy a ready-to-fly "homebuilt" airplane-- something worth considering if you want an experimental but can't or don't wanna build one yourself. It's a trade-off-- money for your lack of time and/or skill. About the only drawback is that you will not hold the repairmen's certificate so you'll have to hire your annual condition inspections done.

This is a short video of an Australian light aircraft called the Hornet that appears to be in the lineage of the Storch with a little shorter gear, Wilga style. All metal using up to an O-320 engine. I thought it looked cool on the landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8QjuPacro