![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim,
I have spoken to a few Sonex builders /owners and they pretty much all agree the best way to stay in the sport pilot class with a Sonex is to use a VW powerplant and a climb prop, a cruise prop on the VW still puts you over the cruise speed. It's a sharp little plane! Patrick student SPL aircraft structural mech "Morgans" wrote in message ... "GeorgeB" wrote I'd certainly like for a citation on that one. While neither a pilot or a builder, I follow the Sonex site; their plane with the Jab 3300, at WOT, greatly exceeds limits. You are right on that, I believe. At one time it was stated as WOT. As they understand it, the rule is "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh) of not more than 120 kts (138 mph) CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level." The word "continuous" is in there ... the 3300 Jabiru is specified at 2750 RPM max continuous which keeps things legal. Many of the owners report significantly higher capability ... and maximum RPM is specified, IIRC, at 3300. I think you have the key here, when you say the Jab engine is rated for 2700 continuous. (by the manufacturer) That is in line with other direct drive RPMs. The higher RPM's can be done with that engine, but just like the other major direct drive makers, you can not run them for long at those speeds, without some consequences. If you took a Lycoming, and said you were going to limit it for continuous operation at 2,000 RPM, that would not fly for the sport plane restrictions. They (the FAA) all know that this engine can run much faster than that, with no harm. So you are told to try again; no dice. It seems if you have a homebrew engine, you have an advantage, because you are the one that will set the continuous operating RPM's. That is my take, anyway. Sorry about the WOT bit. Best be having the WOT close to the continuous RPM, if you want to have a chance of passing, IMHO. A lot of these things are unknown, since the envelope has not yet been pushed, and case precedents have not been established, yet. We will have to wait and see how much they will let us get away with. g -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 11:35 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Weird Experimental Certificate wording - Normal? | Noel Luneau | Soaring | 7 | January 11th 05 02:53 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Onerous OPerating Procedures/Improper (illegal?) Use of Unicom Freq. | rjciii | Soaring | 2 | July 19th 03 07:55 PM |