opinions needed

[tx_swordguy 20]

Guys I am going to go look at an avid C model (number search showed a serial number 454) built around 2003 with at least some upgraded mods. I was told it is 525 empty with gross of 1150. Now for what I need opinions on, It has a Jabiru 2200. The owner said he doesn't know what the rate of climb is but thinks it is around 800 and claims not to have any issues with the engine (oil press or cooling) but admits to only having about 6 hrs in it himself. It has roughly 500 total he said. I would like to know from people that have actually flown one. Also how about getting parts for the engine and any tips or tricks that I may need to know about what to look for in the engine.

Mark

[1avidflyer 1983]

I put over 400 hrs on an Avid MK IV with a Jabiru engine on it.  Mine weighed 585.  525 is really light for what he has.  I'm at 1500' above sea level, and would climb at about 1000' per minute with myself in the plane.  Cooling can be an issue with the Jabiru, although mine was fine.  The mid range hydrolic lifter engines are not as good as the earlier solid lifter or later hydrolic lifter engines.  Some where around serial # 2000 to 3000 I would think twice about.  If he has only 6 hours on it and wants to sell, that would be a bit of a red flag for me.  Unless he came from a larger plane and can't get used to a small plane or something like that.  JImChuk

[EDMO 1078]

I didn't think the model C had a gross Weight of 1150 - More like 950, or 1050, but you would have to verify that with Avid flyers.  Guessing that with the Jab engine it would haul more than a 582, and the builder can set any GW?   EDMO

Edited 16 Aug 2016 by EDMO

[C5Engineer 1170]

As Jim mentioned there was 3 versions of that engine and they never really got it right until towards the end with the 2nd generation hydraulic lifters. With direct drive on a slow draggy plane prop selection is critical if you want to get good STOL performance out of it. 525 is very optimistic. Mine weighed that back when it had 800 tires and mechanical brakes and it's an early B model and bare bones. No lights, interior, transponder, etc. The only plane that had a published 1150 gross were the MK4 with heavy hauler wing. My heavy hauler B is placarded at 1085. While technically there is no gross weight limit on an experimental, people tend to follow the manufacturer guidelines. Not sure of your mission but we have a member here who went from a 532 2-stroke to a Jab and back again to a 582 2-stroke because he just could not get the climb performance he was after. 

[tx_swordguy 20]

Ok guys I live in north texas at about 800' want to fly off 1100' grass strip. I weigh about 190. summer temps get right about 100. He originally told me empty was 690 with a gross of 1150 so I questioned him on the empty weight and he looked at the books showing something of 525ish I don't remember exactly but it was closer to what I expected. I hope he was correct in the 1150 because that would be a really good payload. Just looking for an education on the Jabiru and what to look for in terms of maintenance or reliability. Also how would it compare to the 582? Thanks Mark

[1avidflyer 1983]

My take off performance was about the same with the 582 as with the Jabiru.  My cruise speed increased though.  I have a solid lifter engine, # 903.  It has been a good engine.  Find out what the serial # is on this Jabiru in the C Avid.   JImChuk 

[EDMO 1078]

The reason I posted GW compared with Engine, is because the Kitfox was downgraded from 1200 GW to 1050 when the 503 engine was used - Guessing that the Bandit has reduced GW because of the engine - Guess if you can reduce GW, then you can also increase it with more powerful engine?  EDMO

[tx_swordguy 20]

ok just heard back concerning the serial number on engine as being 22A60. He also double checked the airframe logs as being 1150. he claims 500hrs so the engine (He thinks its original) sounds like it must have been at least good enough to make it that far. I am guessing that due to it being built about 2003 it must have an upgraded wing but I will get some measurements.

 

[1avidflyer 1983]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the earliest Jabiru engines had poor cooling from not enough fins on the heads.  It is possible that the engine was updated to newer heads.  Another negative on the early Jabs were aluminum connecting rods.  Around serial # 400 or so they were upgraded to steel, if my memory is correct.  There is a list of all the updates done on  these engines on the yahoo group.  I'll try to work  up a link to it.  JImChuk

[tx_swordguy 20]

Ok guys thanks for the education. I have decided to pass on that particular plane. I do have another avid within a 4 hr drive to look at that was recently recovered in Oratex with a 670 rotax. I feel comfortable with the 2 stroke in both working on it and what to look out for. I do have a question about what to look for legal wise since both of these items are obviously not original to a 94 era airplane. My understanding is that both the engine swap and the covering is supposed to at least be signed off by an a&p/ inspector . He claims it is current in the annual, but what should I look for in the books especially if this work was carried out AFTER the annual was done? THanks in advance I am learning so much researching the purchase on this and other sites.

Mark

[TJay 1041]

Where is the one located you passed on?

[tx_swordguy 20]

the Houston tx area

 

[EDMO 1078]

Texas - Check the operating limitations - you can always (and should) have them updated to the latest version - I forget the numbers for it, but think it is about version H now.  The later Oplims (I think starting with G) let you make a major change by logbook entry and put it back into Phase 1 for a minimum of 5 hours, but FSDO might require more for an engine change.  Someone should verify what I have said, since I am not reading the regs about it.   I think you can copy them from the FAA site.  FSDO can make the change for you, but since the major change (engine) has already been done, it may require an inspection unless the Oplims have already been updated.  A&P signoff - Maybe needed?  Maybe someone else has had the experience of doing this?   I am thinking the covering is considered a repair and not a major change.  If it was a factory made plane, like the J3, then you would need an STC to cover with Oratex, but not for an Experimental.   You can always ask for a new Condition Inspection prior to the sale. The J3 was sold at Oshkosh and the buyer wanted, and got, a new annual inspection prior to the sale.  EDMO

Edited 18 Aug 2016 by EDMO

[TJay 1041]

the Houston tx area

 

If your not gonna buy it could you give a asking price and maybe a few pics.

[C5Engineer 1170]

There is no work that needs to be signed off by anyone on an experimental. Your operating limitations will specify what types of things constitute a major airframe change and even that leaves some grey area. 

[1avidflyer 1983]

Here are FAA operating limitations for experimental aircraft.  Look at paragraph 6 for major changes.  I do not believe a recover is considered a major change.  Different engine or prop is however.  JImChuk

http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/experimental-lsa-operating.html

Edited 18 Aug 2016 by 1avidflyer

[Av8r3400 1179]

You've all seen the thread on my Mangy Fox.  

With all of the work and modification I did to this plane, all the FAA cared about was the new prop I put on it.  They required me to only fly 5 hours of phase one time.

[EDMO 1078]

Here are FAA operating limitations for experimental aircraft.  Look at paragraph 6 for major changes.  I do not believe a recover is considered a major change.  Different engine or prop is however.  JImChuk

http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/experimental-lsa-operating.html

I think that AC20-27G may have been replaced with AC20-27H, but G is Good for Operating Limitations.   Under the earlier rules you had to have a FSDO or DAR re-inspect the plane after major changes.   EDMO

Edited 18 Aug 2016 by EDMO