Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
jabiru 3300 for rv-12?
- Thread starter titanhank
- Start date
I personally prefer the Jabiru 3300 over the Rotax by a huge margin. However I don't think it would be very practical for the RV-12 because the -12 was designed around the Rotax and it would take a pretty extensive redesign to make that change.
Yes, it can be done. But be prepared to do considerable work.
Yes, it can be done. But be prepared to do considerable work.
I second this. It is your airplane! Build it the way you want. It will take longer trust me! But what you get in the end will blow the others away.
No PSRU, no radiators, single carb, more power, flatter power curve, never having to "burp" the oil system, lower cost....
titanhank
Well Known Member
i currently fly a jab 2200 on an x-air and i have built two titan tornados with jab 2200's and two tornados with the 912s. as much as i like the 912s, the 6 cyclinder jab 3300 is just one cool sounding engine and much simpler to install. the price is also considerably less than the 912s. it is like all projects in the past, i am just brainstorming before strating on my next plane.
thanks for all the replys, maybe jabiru usa or pacific will put together a fwf package for the -12.
thanks for all the replys, maybe jabiru usa or pacific will put together a fwf package for the -12.
E-AB
Well, the good news for this project is that Van licensed his RV-12 as E-AB with seemingly little deviation from the kit/plans. While I don't know what all was altered on his plane, the only thing he mentioned (that I noticed) in his article was the addition of his tail strobe. If he was able to get that project signed off as E-AB, a project with a self-designed FWF setup should be a no-brainer.
I'm not an engineer, by any means, but the two issues that I see with the Jabiru setup are weight and CG issues. While the E-AB plane wouldn't be limited to the 1320# gross weight by rule, that's the published design limit for the airframe (from what I can tell...feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Also, it seems as if the extra weight on the nose could be difficult to balance out, in light of the placement of the occupants.
Just thinking out loud. Obviously you'd be looking closely at these issues before deviating significantly from the plans. I'm going the E-LSA route, personally, as I believe the kit matches my mission profile (and building prowess). Also, my guess is that an E-LSA RV-12 will have a higher resale value if I ever decide to sell it.
Well, the good news for this project is that Van licensed his RV-12 as E-AB with seemingly little deviation from the kit/plans. While I don't know what all was altered on his plane, the only thing he mentioned (that I noticed) in his article was the addition of his tail strobe. If he was able to get that project signed off as E-AB, a project with a self-designed FWF setup should be a no-brainer.
I'm not an engineer, by any means, but the two issues that I see with the Jabiru setup are weight and CG issues. While the E-AB plane wouldn't be limited to the 1320# gross weight by rule, that's the published design limit for the airframe (from what I can tell...feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Also, it seems as if the extra weight on the nose could be difficult to balance out, in light of the placement of the occupants.
Just thinking out loud. Obviously you'd be looking closely at these issues before deviating significantly from the plans. I'm going the E-LSA route, personally, as I believe the kit matches my mission profile (and building prowess). Also, my guess is that an E-LSA RV-12 will have a higher resale value if I ever decide to sell it.
Last edited:
At the risk of both rehashing old topics and hijacking the Jabiru thread, I have a question. An RV-12 is certified E-AB and the builder/manufacturer decrees that the max gross weight is, say, 1450lbs. If that same plane is later purchased by a pilot that wanted to fly it with his Sport Pilot ticket, what (if anything) could he do? Could he re-set the max gross at 1320 for sport pilot operation?
Absolutely Not!
The light-sport rule clearly states that the aircraft must have met light-sport parameters continuously from initial certification. Once the aircraft is outside light-sport parameters, it is forever off-limits to the sport pilot.
The light-sport rule clearly states that the aircraft must have met light-sport parameters continuously from initial certification. Once the aircraft is outside light-sport parameters, it is forever off-limits to the sport pilot.
Thanks (again) Mel
Okay, that's where I was unclear. I thought that exceeding the specs would take the plane out of LSA certification forever, but that a sport pilot could operate any plane, so long as it was currently within the LSA specs. If that makes sense.
So a sport pilot could fly an E-AB RV-12 in the normal category, so long as that plane had never been configured outside of the LSA requirements (gross weight, stall speed, etc.). It seems strange (to me) that a sport pilot cannot legally fly a compliant craft which has, in the past, flown in a non-compliant configuration.
I'm sure that this has all been discussed ad nauseum before. In fact, I'm sure that I've gone over this stuff before. I'm still just trying to get everything straight with the whole LSA thing and sometimes repetition is the only way information penetrates this thick skull o' mine.
Okay, that's where I was unclear. I thought that exceeding the specs would take the plane out of LSA certification forever, but that a sport pilot could operate any plane, so long as it was currently within the LSA specs. If that makes sense.
So a sport pilot could fly an E-AB RV-12 in the normal category, so long as that plane had never been configured outside of the LSA requirements (gross weight, stall speed, etc.). It seems strange (to me) that a sport pilot cannot legally fly a compliant craft which has, in the past, flown in a non-compliant configuration.
I'm sure that this has all been discussed ad nauseum before. In fact, I'm sure that I've gone over this stuff before. I'm still just trying to get everything straight with the whole LSA thing and sometimes repetition is the only way information penetrates this thick skull o' mine.
A Jab 3300 is only about 15lbs (MAYBE 20lbs) heavier than a 91ULS with all accessories included, so you should be able to move stuff to get it in C.G.
The bigger issue is going to be cooling. A lot of guys have had issues keeping the engine at the appropriate temps if the plane was originally designed for something like the 912. However, as long as it is a tractor configuration, these issues are eventually remedied. Jabiru makes firewall forward packages for several planes because of this. I'm sure that they would be eager to help design a FWF package for the RV12 if you brought the subject up with them.
The bigger issue is going to be cooling. A lot of guys have had issues keeping the engine at the appropriate temps if the plane was originally designed for something like the 912. However, as long as it is a tractor configuration, these issues are eventually remedied. Jabiru makes firewall forward packages for several planes because of this. I'm sure that they would be eager to help design a FWF package for the RV12 if you brought the subject up with them.
Geico266
Well Known Member
I understand the rules, but IMHO a 150 would be a good LSA, along with several old certified aircraft with starters. Certainly would allow for cheap flying. There are alot of Sport Pilots out there still cut out of aviation due to the cost. I sure would like to see them flying. I know, I know, rules is rules.
Last edited:
Another very good reason is design limits.
Keep in mind the RV-12 is not designed for, nor is it approved for aerobatic loads. Also, everything possible was done to keep the empty weight at the absolute minimum for the best useful load because of the predesignated max gross weight requirement for LSA...for this reason their is not much margin for arbitrarily setting a higher gross weight than the one specified for LSA. In fact (my personal opinion) the RV-12 is probably the RV models that builders should be the most cautious in considering this.
The best reason of all!
Bad Assumption.
"Initial certification" is when the aircraft is issued the airworthiness certificate.
E-LSA certification begins at the beginning of phase I.
"Initial certification" is when the aircraft is issued the airworthiness certificate.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
The J3300 seems to be a good engine; I have 50 hours behind it and liked it.
I like that it's simpler than the 912 and sems to be designed for low-cost operation (e.g., standard spin-on automotive oil filters, no gearbox). But as others note, the RV-12 is designed around the 912, so builders are on their own if they use a different engine.
TODR
I like that it's simpler than the 912 and sems to be designed for low-cost operation (e.g., standard spin-on automotive oil filters, no gearbox). But as others note, the RV-12 is designed around the 912, so builders are on their own if they use a different engine.
The funny thing is that IMHO, most LSA are more challenging to fly than the 150/152 due to the lighter weight.....and would allow some of us 150/152 owners to keep flying without a medical.
TODR
