Jab vs Rotax

[Dyceman]

OK - time for a new thread :)

No question that Rotax (both 2 and 4 stroke) are the standard in the UL world and Canada specifically, but does anyone in this group have first hand experience or knowledge on the Jabiru 2200 and 3300 engines? I've read as many good things as I have bad about these engines on various websites, which seems typcial for most things. There's naysayers for everything. Even second-hand info (i.e. you know someone - or know someone who knows someone who runs these engines) is valuable.

The Jab 2200 is lighter, less complex (cooling), quite a bit less expensive than the 912 for example -- but of course, how reliable is it in the long run; how much maintenance does it need; how hard is it to get service and support; etc. Lancaster Aero http://www.jabirucanada.com/ is a fairly recent Canadian distributer for Jabiru engines (and aircraft), but other than them, I don't know if there is much service or support elsewhere in Canada.

It would be interesting to hear good or bad things from others who have tried these engines.

[Trev Page]

Dale, if weight was not an issue for my advanced UL I would buy a 3300 instead of a 912ULS in a second. The price is about the same but the 3300 is more powerful.

The Jab is air cooled, thus simpler to install and maintain. Lots of them flying. The early bugs have been worked out (which is why you hear "bad things"). There is something to be said for a more modern version of an air-cooled aircraft engine. Those LYCs haven't changed all that much since the early 40s and they still charge and arm and a leg for them, not to mention the weight of those.

[Dyceman]

Hey Trev,

As an alternative then -- why not the 2200 instead of the 912? The Jab 22 is 85 HP vs the black head 912's 80. Plus the Jab 22 is lighter and $5K less expensive (new) than the 80 HP 912. I guess stated TBO (for what it's worth) is better with the Rotax. 1,500 hrs vs the Jab's 1,000. Have any Jabs even made it to TBO yet?

I admit I don't know that much about engines, but the Jabs do look and sound a lot simpler without all the plumbing that the Rotax has.

The Jabs seem to have a fickle break-in period - which kind of puts me off a little.

Head Torque
On new engines torque heads each 5 hours for the first 15 hours and then again at 25 hours.

Valve Adjustment
On new engines adjust valves at 5, 10, & 15 hours and again at 25 hours.

I guess if this isn't done properly - your new engine might not last very long

Lots of good tech info on the Jab USA website: http://www.usjabiru.com/Tech%20Tips.htm#Head%20Torque


But then . . . if you already have a 912 and are happy with it -- it should be a number of years before you would have to even consider making a change.

[shorty]

Have to remeber the Aero vees and Jaberus rev higher than lycoming and continentals and that means you will be limited to a shorter prop if that matters on your application.

I have read about good sucess on Jab 2200 s on Avid flyer ( same as Kitfox)

There is a guy in SW Ont building a Sonex and will be using jab 3300-- will be interesting and a good performer I would think. But the Sonxe is a high speed machine and the shorter prop would not be an issue as it would be on a STOL or floatplane.



Shorty

[Matthew Roung]

Shorty has it bang on here. 80hp 912 vs 80hp 2200, the Rotax engine, being geared, swings a larger prop. Much better for short fields or floats. Same goes for the 912s vs 3300, the Jab is rated for 120hp, but still can't match the 100hp Rotax in swinging a big prop. No problem on a plane where speed is the priority, and short takeoff isn't a concern.

TBO numbers don't mean much sometimes. Rotax has a TBO on their 2-strokes for 300hrs. Yet lots of folks running say, a 503 go well beyond that. Others, for example the 618, don't reach 100hrs before the crank goes. Word is though that the 912 series engines do reach TBO, and beyond. Maybe the Jabs are there too. We only have 100 hrs on our 912s, a long way to go yet! No engine will even come close to TBO if neglected, or abused. Take care of it, and it will likely take care of you!
-Matt

[Trev Page]

I don't worry much about TBO. The amount of flying I do would equal 30 years before I would ever reach a major overhaul. In that case I doubt I would still own the plane.

In retrospect, if I had the $$ to spend on a new engine I would most likely pick the Jab over the 912. The 3300 I like more than the 2200 because owners say the 2200 doesn't really put out 80HP as they claim. Also, being 6 cylinders it's bound to the smoother running.

[Dyceman]

TBO, etc

Do aircraft owners pay much attention to calendar time with respect to TBO of their engines? By the book, Rotax lists 1,500 hrs or 15 years as the life limit on their newest 912 engines. 1,200 and 10 years on the earlier models. Even if you only had 800 hrs on an engine -- if it were more than 15 years old, I guess Rotax would expect you to overhaul it. If you are operating as an AULA, are you also required to follow your engine manufacturers maintenance directives and guideines? Just like you are to follow whatever maintenance schedule and guidlines your actual aircraft manufacturer has provided?

I saw this neat little device in my 2006 Aircraft Spruce catalogue. It's called the Engine Saver (from Aircraft Spruce)http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/engsaver.php
It's supposed to help preserve your engine when not in use, even if you are not flying for a few days, or weeks/months. They say it goes a long way to helping keep corrosion out of your engine and prolonging it's life. Anyone heard of this gizmo? Looks and sounds pretty slick.

About the Jab 2200.
New versions (last year or so) have been increased to 85 hp. I don't know what they did to squeeze the extra 5 ponies out of it -- but that's what they say. And they have increased TBO to 2,000 hrs (but you have to at least do a top end overhaul at 1,000). Getting closer to Rotax specs all the time!

When I last spoke with the guys at Can-Zac (Canadian distributor for Zenair) they were a big fan of the Jabiru 3300 on the 601.

[Trev Page]

Dale, the Corvair conversion from William Wynne is another possible candiate as well. Keep in mind, it's a bit heavier than a 912 install by about 35 pounds I'm told. Very easy to convert, he sells all the parts and WAY cheaper in the long run.

Some may not like to use anything but an "aircraft" engine but the Corvair done right is as close you can come to an aircraft-type engine (William is an A&P). I'd consider it before I spent big $$ on a 912 rebuild.

I attended the first Canadian Corvair college in April.

Lots of info at www.flycorvair.com

[Yvan]

I saw this neat little device in my 2006 Aircraft Spruce catalogue. It's called the Engine Saver (from Aircraft Spruce)http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/engsaver.php
It's supposed to help preserve your engine when not in use, even if you are not flying for a few days, or weeks/months. They say it goes a long way to helping keep corrosion out of your engine and prolonging it's life. Anyone heard of this gizmo? Looks and sounds pretty slick.

Is it just me, or does it look like a fan, an empty 2L pop bottle, dessicant and a frame?

[Trev Page]

$280 bucks??? I think I can make one with leftover junk in my basement and $15 in other parts...

I guess they're hoping people don't notice the 2 litre Coke bottle and think it's a PMA'd acrylic containment device...

[Dyceman]

OK . . .OK . . .

I guess the Aircraft Spruce device does look a little chincy. But does something like this - whether bought or home-made - actually help prolong the life of an engine?

Right now, I fly once or twice per month (renting). I would like to fly more, and probably would (a little) if I had my own plane or was sharing with someone else. But is firing up an engine a couple times a month for a couple hours enough? I've often read that the worst thing for any engine - particularly aircraft engines - is lack of use. That's why I thought a device like this might be useful.

. . . Maybe the 2L coke bottle already comes with a free soda fill! :)

Dyceman