Canard Aviation Forum  

Go Back   Canard Aviation Forum > For Sale, Trade, Loan or Wanted > For Sale, Private Sales Only
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-18-2006, 11:38 AM
Spodman's Avatar
Spodman Spodman is offline
Wannabe - with plans
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 527
Default Jabiru 5100 engine for sale

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/fo...&threadid=2235

Ideal Cozy IV engine, mount available from Jabiru. Located somewhere in Canada, wants US$17,500. (I thort they had their own currency...)
__________________
Mark Spedding - the Spodman
Darraweit Guim, Australia
Theoretical Cozy IV 1331 - Celebrating 5 smegging years of not building anything
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2006, 05:53 PM
rutanfan rutanfan is offline
Ray V.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Logan, Utah
Posts: 256
Default

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.
__________________
I think; therefore I am. - Rene Descartes
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-21-2006, 08:58 PM
Lynn Erickson Lynn Erickson is offline
EVOLUTION EZE
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spodman
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/fo...&threadid=2235

Ideal Cozy IV engine, mount available from Jabiru. Located somewhere in Canada, wants US$17,500. (I thort they had their own currency...)
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?
__________________
This is my opinion of these facts and only my opinion, your opinion may vary

Lynn Erickson A&P for lets say almost 36 years
Much better with a Dremel than a computer.
What if they gave me choice between an APPLE computer or a fast plane?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2006, 11:15 AM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,442
Default

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.
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2006, 01:40 PM
Marc Zeitlin Marc Zeitlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tehachapi, CA 93561
Posts: 1,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarbleTurtle
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2006, 06:09 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,442
Default

Comparing against the 172 is not exactly setting the bar high... and by performance I don't think you meant take-off performance.
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2006, 06:23 PM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 432
Default

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
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-22-2006, 08:31 PM
Spodman's Avatar
Spodman Spodman is offline
Wannabe - with plans
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 527
Default

Quote:
...but doesn’t know the HP???
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.
__________________
Mark Spedding - the Spodman
Darraweit Guim, Australia
Theoretical Cozy IV 1331 - Celebrating 5 smegging years of not building anything
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-22-2006, 11:37 PM
Kraig Kraig is offline
Finished with ch. 14!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 414
Default

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

kraig
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-23-2006, 07:27 AM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,442
Default

Very sharp... just wish they could get that flat 8 up to 200 hp. Maybe my definition of "adequate" is just different than others.
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-23-2006, 02:22 PM
bhassel bhassel is offline
Bob Hassel
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 173
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-24-2006, 03:34 AM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 432
Default

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..
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-24-2006, 09:28 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
89% done 96% to go
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,072
Default

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.
__________________
Canardcommunity.com

Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-24-2006, 09:35 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
89% done 96% to go
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin
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.
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.
__________________
Canardcommunity.com

Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-24-2006, 10:31 AM
Marc Zeitlin Marc Zeitlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tehachapi, CA 93561
Posts: 1,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
On the 160 HP, i think the only ones that are happy with the performance are those that also install a CS prop.
I guess you should tell Kevin Funk that he shouldn't be happy with his fixed pitch, O-320, 160 HP COZY MKIV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
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.
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.