It’s $3,300 for a custom factory Jabiru 5100 mount. One thing to also note, is that Jabiru Pacific mentioned to me that increased cooling fins are in the works and should be available in about a year… In experimental engine manufacturer’s terms that’s what??? 12 years?

It might be worth the $3k to wait. There’s also a lot to be said for the security of purchasing from an authorized dealer. I don’t know this dude’s story so maybe he’s legit, but he owns a $21,000 engine, but doesn’t know the HP??? Also, his profile says ‘DutchPilot’ but he’s located in Canada. Everybody knows Dutchland is in Europe.

That a lot of $$$$$$$$ for 160 HP you can buy a overhauled 200 Hp Lycoming for that. 160 HP is to little for a Mark 4, it's good for a Cozy 3 but a four needs at least 180 Hp. and why are they changing to bigger cooling fins? are they a bit small maybe?

The 160 hp may be barely adequate for a Cozy IV. I was surprised to find out Kevin Funk was using a Lyco 320. I watched him take off once at the Oshkosh field loaded with gear and 4 people. I finally had to stand up on the flightline to see if he actually ever made it off the ground. Then other people stood up around me looking to see if something happened. It took a pair of binoculars to find him lifting off at the end of a verrrry long runway.

Now that I think about it... 160 hp is not adequate.

Kevin Funk and Tim Merrill (and Jerry Schneider, IIRC) would beg to differ. The COZY MKIV plans explicitly say (right at the beginning of Chapter 23) that an O-320 engine is appropriate for the airframe.

Even with the O-320, the performance is still WAY better than a spam can, like a Warrior or C-172.

Comparing against the 172 is not exactly setting the bar high... and by performance I don't think you meant take-off performance.

Hi,

I have been thinking Jabiru to be 180 hp engine. Specs say:

Jabiru 5100 180 HP

* 5077cc ,170 hp @ 2750 rpm180hp @ 3000RPM
* 8 Cylinder Horizontally Opposed
* 1 Central Camshaft
* Push Rods
* Over Head Valves (OHV)
* Ram Air Cooled
* Wet Sump Lubrication - 6 litre (6 qt) capacity
* Direct Propeller Drive
* Dual Transistorized Magneto Ignition
* Integrated AC Generator
* Electric Starter
* Mechanical Fuel Pump
* Naturally Aspirated - 2 Pressure Compensating Carburetors
* Oil Cooler

Displacement 5077cc (310ci)
Bore 97.5mm (3.84in)
Stroke 85mm (3.35in)
Compression Ratio 7.8:1
Rotation of Prop Shaft Clockwise - Pilot's View - Tractor
Ramp Weight 117kg (257lbs) inc. Exhaust, Carburetor, Starter Motor, Alternator & Ignition System & Accessory pack & oil cooler.
Ignition Timing fixed @ 25° BTDC
Firing Order 1-4-5-2-3-6
DC Output 25 AMP cont. direct mounted or optional second 25A direct mounted alternator.
Power Rating 170hp @ 2750rpm, 180hp @ 3000rpm
Fuel Consumption Cruise power 0.46 lbs per horsepower hour (274 grams/kW-hour)
Fuel AVGAS 100/130LL or Premium Auto Fuel (above 92 RON/Octane)
Oil AeroShell W100 or equivalent aircraft grade oil
Oil Capacity 6Lts (6 Quarts)
Spark Plugs NGK D9EA - Automotive

* Engine Specifications may be subject to change at any time.

I don't know for sure which informaiton is more recent, but this was copy-pasted from www.jabiruaircraft.com. Australian Jabiru's web site says also 180 hp. Of course the prop may be less efficient at 3000 rpm, but I think the power rating is still more than 160 hp unless Jabiru has downrated their engine to 160 hp recently or if this particular engine is some earlier version which is ok for 160 hp only, I don't know.

An engineer here said me one day that a rule of thumb that you need to double the engine power to increase the speed by 25%. I am not sure if the difference between 160 and 180 hp is that significant, even in takeoff, considering that one would propably get better takeoff performance with a constant speed prop than with increasing the engine output by 20 hp while having a fixed pitch cruise prop. With experience with our ground adjustable prop in our LSA-plane, only 1-2 degrees of difference in blade pitch can ruin takeoff performance or sacrifice cruise speed by 30 km/h.

Best Wishes
Karoliina

Jabiru doesn't seem to know the hp either... According to the brochure I have at home it is 160. I did read somewhere else it was designed for 180, but they got 160. The Cozy is designed for 160.

Would I want a shiny, modern, computer machined engine that runs like a turbine or a clanky, reconditioned historical artifact older than most of the people I work with? Hmmmm, let me think.

You have to admit, that is one sharp looking engine.

kraig

Very sharp... just wish they could get that flat 8 up to 200 hp. Maybe my definition of "adequate" is just different than others.

Engine Specs

It used to be that the engine was ratyed at 180 hp at 3,000 rpm's and 160 at 2,700 I believe.

Yes they loook good.

Jabiru looks really good and what some Jabiru owners have reported about their smaller engines at least, they have commented that they run very smoothly.

I would have propably bought this engine if I was 2-3 years further in the project. However, now it does not make any sense to buy engine as I am still in the chapter 3 garage/worktable/glass fiber box/epoxy box/etc. construction and haven't even done first bulkhead yet... For me chapter 3 seems to not take just couple of hours, but several hundreds of hours since the garage was not empty clean and warm nice place to begin with..

Look up Icing on the NTSB and you will find scant reports of wing icing causing crashes and many, many carb icing accidents.

I would never put a carb in an airplane

I took a flight lesson in scottsdale AZ and I put carb heat on every time i reduced the RPM in the pattern. The flight instructor said they never do it and asked why i did.

What you think happens to those poor sots when they travel outside the desert.

Well Nat recommended the franklin also. But read his reports and that "200 hp" engine did not perform any where near as good as his 180 HP lycoming. He was quite glad to be rid of it. On the 160 HP, i think the only ones that are happy with the performance are those that also install a CS prop.

On the performance of the cozy vrs the 172 - the 172 is way better at take off and landing. As we both know - cruise is not affected very much by a reduction of HP, but take off and climb are.

I guess you should tell Kevin Funk that he shouldn't be happy with his fixed pitch, O-320, 160 HP COZY MKIV.

The takeoff roll and landing roll of the COZY will always be longer than the C-172/Warrior, as the wing loading is much higher. Even with the O-320 (same engine as the mid-year C-172's) the COZY climbs better. The only thing the C-172/Warrior does better is have a shorter ground roll.