PDA

View Full Version : Verner radial vs. Rotec radial



mickey
09-26-2008, 03:24 PM
Anybody know anything about the Verner Scarlett radials? I know they're made in the Czech Republic, and a Canadian dealer told me that they carry their oil supply in the crankcase. I have no idea how they prevent the oil from leaking out the bottom cylinders.

The familiar Rotec R2800 from Australia is a more traditional design with an external oil sump.

Rotec:

7 cylinders.
Bore and Stroke: 80 x 80 mm
Total displacement: 2800 cc.
Power: 110 hp @ 3600 engine rpm
Gear reduction: 3:2 (Rated power at 2400 prop RPM.)
Dry weight: 102kg, 224 lbs including all bolt-on accessories, but NOT including the external oil tank!
Diameter: 810mm, 31.9 inches.
Fuel consumption: 5.81 gph at cruise (From Rotec website.)

Verner Scarlett 5:

5 cylinders
Bore 97mm, Stroke 90mm
Total displacement: 3325 cc.
Power: 125 hp @ 3000 engine rpm
Gear reduction: NONE.
Dry weight: 85kg, 187 lbs. NO external tank.
Diameter: I have no idea. Can't find any info. But from the look of it, it's MUCH smaller than the R2800. Will proably fit in a modified Kitfox "bumpy cowl."
Fuel consumption: 5.5 gph at FULL POWER (3000 rpm)


My uneducated opinions:

1. The Rotec looks better. It's obviously intended to be a "traditional" radial. It's gorgeous. If it could cook I'd marry it.

2. The Verner is actually the wimpiest version of their 5-cylinder series. The same, exact engine is available in a 170 hp version that simply has a higher rated RPM: 3500. And it has a reduction drive. They also have a wicked 190 hp, 4600 rpm SUPERCHARGED version with a reduction drive. That tells me that the standard "Scarlett 5" is very de-rated and is just basically loping along. It is introduced with a 1000 hour TBO. So it appears that the 125 hp version should last a good, long time assuming the engineering is sound.

3. The Rotec is a more proven design. The Verner Scarlett series was recently introduced, and I don' know of anybody who is using one yet. It's made in the part of the Czech Republica that Hitler wanted real bad when he invaded Czechoslovakia. They're renowned for their aviation and weapons manufacturing. I'd like to think they know what they're doing.

4. Judging from the photos, the Verner motor uses much shorter connecting rods. The over-square design is clearly a high-rpm one, which allows them to spin the same engine at enormous velocities to achieve up to 4600 rpm. The whole engine is much lighter and more compact than the Rotec. You save 37 pounds over the Rotec without even factoring in the weight of the Rotec's oil tank. That's no small item!

5. The Kitfox is a pretty tiny airplane, and therefore wants a tiny prop. The Rotec, with it's big gear reduction, wants to sling a relatively long club. The Verner, on the other hand, sounds like it would be happy with exactly the sort of prop that people want to use on a Kitfox.

Prices are similar. Both use premium mogas or 100LL. The Verner, lacking gear reduction, would be happy using a broader variety of lubricating oils. (No need for gear lube specs.)

Opinions? If anybody knows, or has heard anything about the Verner Scarlett engines I'd love to hear it. I can't find ANYTHING on the internet, and even the dealers seem to know very little about them. I don't think they've actually sold any yet. If they are what they're cracked up to be they sound ideal for a Kitfox, if somebody wants a genuine radial engine and wants to keep it enclosed in a full cowl. And the weight savings is a VERY big deal for somebody as high on the Bubba Scale as I am.

www.rotecradialengines.com (http://www.rotecradialengines.com)

mickey
09-26-2008, 03:29 PM
Incidentally: Unless I am misinterpreting something, the Verner Scarlett 5 can make its full 125 hp @ 3000 rpm ALL DAY LONG. That's not just a "takeoff power." I am making that assumption since the same engine is also rated to make 170 hp @ 3500 rpm and 190 hp @ 4600 rpm with gear reduction.

I am further assuming that fuel consumption in cruise would be VERY low, since you wouldn't want to actually be making 125 hp all the time. Combine this thing with an electric constant-speed prop like a Woodcomp or a Warp Drive and I would expect it to cruise along with almost absurd fuel economy.

And it's about half the price of a shiny new 912S.

This engine sounds too good to be true. Somebody please give me a dose of reality.

kmul
09-26-2008, 06:18 PM
mickey
i cant imagine anyone that doesnt salivate at the sound and looks of a radial. i think you probably give up alot of cruise speed/horsepower as they have alot of drag and frontal area. no matter how attractive the verner might sound i wouldnt even consider one till a more than a few were over here and flying. as far as prop diameter i would put 800 tires on and then a big dia prop if i had a geared radial. the prop wash over the wings from the larger prop i think would give better stol performance and maybe a slower stall if you were carrying a little power. i am only guessing though. if on the other hand i found a rotec under the christmas tree or something i wouldnt be unhappy. keith

mickey
09-26-2008, 09:39 PM
Reliability with the Verner is certainly a concern, since it'll be my narrow behind up there.

Another slightly less "out there" idea:

http://www.experimentalfuelinjection.com/

How about a Rotax 914 turbo with electronic fuel injection and ignition? Fully redundant computers are an option. He uses an oil-to-water cooler, so you only need to worry about a radiator in the airstream.

As you can see, I'm not somebody who is content with the status quo. But I've got good life insurance.

Edit: If the Verner engine fits inside the standard "bubble cowl" then drag and frontal area won't be an issue. That's a big "if", though, since I can't find any info on the diameter of the engine.

RandyL
09-27-2008, 08:16 AM
Mickey,

"Radial engine" and "fast" don't normally go in the same sentence. Of course that huge frontal area and all those fins are enormously draggy. Since good high DA operation is your goal I'd look really hard at a 914, possibly with tweaks and improvements as you've mentioned.

I don't know if you've built any airplanes before but I can tell you that as soon as you deviate from any of the well-engineered kits you are taking construction time up by a factor of at least ten. Kitfox offers a standard FWF installation kit for the Rotax and everything is completely thought out for you and proven to work. All needed parts are provided. With any of these other installations you're on your own for everything. First there's designing the systems, then there's finding and fabricating all the parts, then there's testing to see if each system works, then there's the inevitable revision iterations. Not trying to discourage you, just point this out. Still, this is experimental aviation and we're all free to try different things, and that's good so long as you're up for the challenge, and that's how we advance the state-of-the-art.

Personally, given your objectives of speed and good high-DA performance, the 914 seems ideal, and there should be plenty of room for experimentation to keep you happy. I know I like to tweak things myself and am seldom happy just following the plans without some attempt at *improvement*. Heck, I'm barely into my Kitfox project and I've already got a "Mods" page on my project web site. Who knows what will end up there by the time I finish.

FWIW,

mickey
09-27-2008, 08:41 PM
Killjoy.

Well, I DO still own plans for a Hatz Bantam. And I intend to build it someday. That one will have a radial for sure. I think you're right about the value of a turbo engine for my intended purpose.

I'd REALLY like an excuse to use a turbodiesel........

paulc
01-12-2009, 06:54 PM
Mickey,

"Radial engine" and "fast" don't normally go in the same sentence. Of course that huge frontal area and all those fins are enormously draggy. "
FWIW,

Nonsense.

Radial powered Focke-wolf 190 was faster than the Inline powered Spitfire and P51.

Race planes such as the Gee Bee's were unbeatable, Even now days Rare Bear at the Reno races is the fastest of the lot. All radial powered.

Air cooled engines need to be cooled, if they be round, flat or inline, makes no difference. Cooling equals drag period.

jonbakerok
01-13-2009, 06:23 AM
Nonsense.

Radial powered Focke-wolf 190 was faster than the Inline powered Spitfire and P51.

Race planes such as the Gee Bee's were unbeatable, Even now days Rare Bear at the Reno races is the fastest of the lot. All radial powered.

Air cooled engines need to be cooled, if they be round, flat or inline, makes no difference. Cooling equals drag period.

I think your logic only applies to golden age aircraft when the cowl is a carefully designed NACA cowl, as in your examples. Until the invention of the NACA cowl, water-cooled designs were generally faster.

The concept of the NACA cowl is to create enough jet boost from the cowl exits to overcome the radial's frontal area. It squeezes the cooling air to increase its velocity after heating, much like a jet does. The combination of the jet boost plus the radial's lighter weight gives better performance, which is why radials ruled for most of the golden age despite their frontal area.

The Kitfox bumpy cowl is definately not a NACA cowl, and I doubt that a 125 HP radial would fit inside it anyway. But if it did, it would be an interesting question, since in that case both alternatives would be suffering the same frontal area penalty. Maybe the radial would be faster, since it has more power and can swing a bigger prop. Or that gain could be offset by the weight penalty, which would cause the angle of attack to increase. It would be an interesting experiment.

paulc
01-13-2009, 08:50 AM
I think your logic only applies to golden age aircraft when the cowl is a carefully designed NACA cowl, as in your examples. Until the invention of the NACA cowl, water-cooled designs were generally faster.



Hmmm not sure about that. I don’t think Rare Bear or the Fw190 were "golden era" the golden era was 1920-1930's.

In fact as far as piston powered aircraft are concerned these were the high water mark, before the kero burners came to be in the 1940-50's

Would the Germans have had NACA technology at their disposal during the peak of WWII? Oh and let's not forget Japan's Zero, Russia's I 16 Polikarpov's all as fast as bullets. Definitely not slow!

NACA cowl or not, it’s a complete fallacy to associate radials only with slow speed. The OX5 was an inline V8 and powered the Jenny Bi-plane was just about the slowest thing around. So do we say that V8's are slow or that Jenny's are slow?

jonbakerok
01-15-2009, 07:54 AM
Hmmm not sure about that. I don’t think Rare Bear or the Fw190 were "golden era" the golden era was 1920-1930's.

In fact as far as piston powered aircraft are concerned these were the high water mark, before the kero burners came to be in the 1940-50's

Would the Germans have had NACA technology at their disposal during the peak of WWII? Oh and let's not forget Japan's Zero, Russia's I 16 Polikarpov's all as fast as bullets. Definitely not slow!

NACA cowl or not, it’s a complete fallacy to associate radials only with slow speed. The OX5 was an inline V8 and powered the Jenny Bi-plane was just about the slowest thing around. So do we say that V8's are slow or that Jenny's are slow?

We're getting a little off-topic here, but since the board traffic has been a little slow lately, I'll bite...

Sorry about my sloppy use of the term "golden age", but my point is still valid. You need a NACA cowl to make a radial go as fast as an equivalent inline engine. That's how the Focke-Wolf, Zero, and Gee-Bee did it. NACA developed the cowl in 1927 (just checked Wiki). The design was in wide usage throughout the 30's.

The OX5 in your "Jenny" was a 400 pound V8 that barely made 90 horsepower. Not a reasonable comparison. Consider the Spad 13's Hispano-Suisa or Fokker D7's Mercedes, both of which were must faster than the equivilent poorly cowled rotories of the same period

Rare Bear is a special case. That's a huge, dual-row radial with twice the horsepower of the Mustangs it races against. It goes fast by sheer brute strength, but it's still as likely to lose any given race as it is to win.

Frontal area has more to do with how fast a plane flies than horsepower. Without a special cowl to overcome the radial's larger frontal area, the smaller profile of an inline water cooled engine will win every time. The two may have the same theoretical cooling drag, but the cooling efficiency of cast fins hanging perpendicular to the breeze is much less than water transferring the heat to the closely-spaced thin aluminum fins in a radiator behind a duct.

No need for theory, though. We've got proof. Several Kitfoxes are flying with that beautiful Rotec on the front. None of them are as fast as a 100 hp Rotax. Speed is not why you put a radial on a Kitfox.

Please don't think that I don't like radials just because I'm aware of the limitations. I'd give up a few knots for that look any day.

paulc
01-15-2009, 05:55 PM
No need for theory, though. We've got proof. Several Kitfoxes are flying with that beautiful Rotec on the front. None of them are as fast as a 100 hp Rotax. Speed is not why you put a radial on a Kitfox.


Not sure about that. Here are the actual accounts of one Radial powered Kitfox owner. I’d be surprised if any Rotax (even at 6,000rpm) could match these numbers. No cowl fitted NACA or otherwise!

Due to landing gear length, I know some Rotec/Kitfox owners have compromised performance by running smaller props on there Rotec which is designed to run larger props via its superior torque. 76" diameter is the optimum.

Kitfox Classic IV: Brian Henneman
Engine R2800 MkI
Prop: 76"D x 50"P then to 76”D x 55”P.
Burn: 6 gal/hr
Max RPM: 3600 (via 3:2 gear box)
Cruise RPM: 3000 = 2000 at prop.

Comment (26th June 2002): I did a static thrust test this past weekend and it will pull 480 lbs. Very impressive. More later.
Comment (11th June 2002): Just wanted to let you know I received my new prop a 76"dia. X 55" pitch and the performance really increased. The climb is still about 1500'/min. and the top speed is 130 mph. I can still exceed the red line up to about 3700 rpm. I have been cruising it at 3400 rpm and I am indication 110 -115 mph. I could use about another 5" of pitch to have a really good cruise prop but I will keep this one for demos.
Comment (28th April 2002 “I got in a couple of hour flying this weekend so far and I took Steve up in it with me. With the prop I have on it, it is really a climbing machine. I can peg the VSI at 2000' / min. and that is really going up for a little airplane”

Joe Meyeres
01-19-2009, 01:31 PM
This is in response to John Baker on his comment of the Rotec 2800 vs Rotax 912. I have a Classic IV with the Rotec on the nose swinging a wooden 70" Climb Pitched Sterba Prop. At full power straight and level I am seeing 127 MPH, 75% power is 105 to 110 MPH and 65% yeilds around 90 to 95 MPH. I don't know what the Rotax will give you, but if you are looking for speed out of an airplane, the Kitfox is not the greatest choice. It's got alot of drag and the tube and fabric construction some would consider not as durable. However, I would not give up the aesthetic value achieved by putting the Rotec on the nose. It is "robust" and you can not match the sound it delivers. As for the speed... it's a Kitfox, but it sure not the slowest one to the party! I get alot of comments that it looks somewhat like a Beaver or Monocoupe. In my way of thinking, that's not bad company to be in!!! Pictures and videos are available on the Rotec Website at www.rotecradialengines.com (http://www.rotecradialengines.com)

paulc
01-19-2009, 02:07 PM
Those sound like pretty darn good numbers to me. Add some wheel spats and I reckon you could add another 5mph, what would that make it, 132mph?

BTW Here's a short movie of Joe's plane in action! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHdIZuv-K4

Joe Meyeres
01-19-2009, 02:49 PM
Paul,

I elected to go with the bigger tires to provide more prop tip clearance, but yes, if you did add wheel pants and clip the wings it would make this airplane into a true Speedster model. (All the other Speedster mods have been done on this airplane.) Those two items could concievable add another 5, 10 maybe even to 15 MPH. And remember this airplane has a climb pitched prop!
The reason I chose the Kitfox is because it had "good" top end, "great" shortfield performance and "great" slow flight characteristics. The Rotec Radial adds so much more to the aesthetics of the airplane. No such thing as a quick turn at the pump though. It always gets crowded before I leave!

Av8r3400
01-19-2009, 04:18 PM
Joe, that is an absolutely beautiful bird, no doubt.

Is there a heat muff on the exhaust somewhere for cabin heat? I'd love a Rotec, but I need cabin heat in Wisconsin.

Joe Meyeres
01-19-2009, 04:58 PM
AV8R,

Thanks for the nice comment. No carb heat or cabin heat at the moment. That is something I am working on. If you look at the Rotec website there is a fella named Simon Mears who fabricated a very efficient heat muff system for his Rotec. In fact I was just e:mailing him. I hate to go to the collector ring for heat, but it has been a cold winter here in Kansas! It has me thinking, :rolleyes: "heat dummy!" Actually my biggest concern is carb ice... it should not be a problem with the location of my air filter, but don't want to risk the chance. Heat in the cabin would be a bonus and provide more flying days.

jonbakerok
01-22-2009, 06:38 AM
This is in response to John Baker on his comment of the Rotec 2800 vs Rotax 912. I have a Classic IV with the Rotec on the nose swinging a wooden 70" Climb Pitched Sterba Prop. At full power straight and level I am seeing 127 MPH, 75% power is 105 to 110 MPH and 65% yeilds around 90 to 95 MPH. I don't know what the Rotax will give you, but if you are looking for speed out of an airplane, the Kitfox is not the greatest choice. It's got alot of drag and the tube and fabric construction some would consider not as durable. However, I would not give up the aesthetic value achieved by putting the Rotec on the nose. It is "robust" and you can not match the sound it delivers. As for the speed... it's a Kitfox, but it sure not the slowest one to the party! I get alot of comments that it looks somewhat like a Beaver or Monocoupe. In my way of thinking, that's not bad company to be in!!! Pictures and videos are available on the Rotec Website at www.rotecradialengines.com (http://www.rotecradialengines.com)

Hey, didn't say I PREFERRED a Rotax. Heck, I'm using Jabiru in my project. I just have a hard time understanding how a much heavier engine, with larger frontal area, and about the same horsepower can be faster. My theory can't stand up to your facts, though. Must be the prop.

I'm with you, anyway. If I could afford one, I'd take the aethetics over a few knots any day, even if it was slower.

Make me wonder what it could do with a good cowl. If you could just figure out how to make one out of plexiglass!

Slyfox
01-22-2009, 08:57 AM
Hay, lets not be cutting down the Rotax. I just put on a 912s and that thing is unbelievable. I myself do not care about looks. It's the performance. I also know that when you have a heavy plane you will loose in handling. My plane handles like no other in my opinion. The empty weight is 650. I can't even emagine an extra 100 pounds. That would mean I would have a one seater airplane. What I mean there is me the wife and 30 pounds of cargo and full fuel, I'm at gross 1200lbs. You guys talk about a 2000vis well I get that with my airplane with the 912s. Plus I can throw my airplane around at low altitudes and have a bunch of fun.

Yes your airplane looks cool. It is a show plane. I rather fly. Sorry, just my opinion. please don't take offense.

Joe Meyeres
01-22-2009, 09:59 AM
Hay, lets not be cutting down the Rotax. I just put on a 912s and that thing is unbelievable. I myself do not care about looks. It's the performance. I also know that when you have a heavy plane you will loose in handling. My plane handles like no other in my opinion. The empty weight is 650. I can't even emagine an extra 100 pounds. That would mean I would have a one seater airplane. What I mean there is me the wife and 30 pounds of cargo and full fuel, I'm at gross 1200lbs. You guys talk about a 2000vis well I get that with my airplane with the 912s. Plus I can throw my airplane around at low altitudes and have a bunch of fun.

Yes your airplane looks cool. It is a show plane. I rather fly. Sorry, just my opinion. please don't take offense.



Steve,
No offense taken by any means... yes my airplane is heavier. But I really like the looks of the radial. You can't imagine the amount of attention it draws, especially with the older crowd who learned behind a radial. Still, heavy or not it does pretty well on shortfield, climb and top end and the engine is fairly simple to maintain.
Joe

Joe Meyeres
01-22-2009, 10:05 AM
Hey, didn't say I PREFERRED a Rotax. Heck, I'm using Jabiru in my project. I just have a hard time understanding how a much heavier engine, with larger frontal area, and about the same horsepower can be faster. My theory can't stand up to your facts, though. Must be the prop.

I'm with you, anyway. If I could afford one, I'd take the aethetics over a few knots any day, even if it was slower.

Make me wonder what it could do with a good cowl. If you could just figure out how to make one out of plexiglass!


Jon,
I like your idea about a plexiglass cowl!!! And I am not knocking Rotax... don't get me wrong. I just really like the looks of the radial and don't feel performance is suffering that much. There are some folks in the area that are leaning on me to put a ring cowl, or speed cowl on this installation. I could probably pick up a few knots by doing that, but I think it would take away from the asthetics of the overall project.
Joe

Slyfox
01-22-2009, 10:22 AM
I agree, leave it the way it is, looks cool. In fact I think your plane looks so cool, it would do havik with these biplane boys that think there airplanes are so cool. Just thinking of what they would think if their type of engine on a little kitfox. I like it.

Joe Meyeres
01-22-2009, 10:30 AM
the take off and landings are a lot of my flying and my kitfox more than fits the bill for me but the low slow menauverability that I have with mine is very impressive.


Touchet! I know what you mean about people horning around fragile things like airplanes especially with unruly kids... and who just don't know any better. Anytime you get the chance, I would love to show you this bird and I would love to see how your airplane performs!
Joe

Joe Meyeres
01-22-2009, 10:33 AM
I agree, leave it the way it is, looks cool. In fact I think your plane looks so cool, it would do havik with these biplane boys that think there airplanes are so cool. Just thinking of what they would think if their type of engine on a little kitfox. I like it.


Thanks!;) I am real happy with the way it turned out.

paulc
01-22-2009, 02:15 PM
I myself do not care about looks. It's the performance.

Allbee, I hope you didn’t choose your wife using that philosophy, ouch! :)

With the amount of flying Joe has done lately, plus with good looks, great performance (based on his numbers) I'd say his plane is the tops.

There are loads of movies up on U-tube of Joe's plane. greaser one wheel landings and all!

Joe, you should ask Rotec if you can have your plane at their booth at Oshkosh this year, I'm sure they'd dig it!

paulc
01-23-2009, 02:45 AM
I think ouch to what you said. I don't know about you, but I've been married to my wife for 31 years, and yes I would do it again in a second. She is the most beautiful person in the world, inside and out.



Got a picture you can post, I just want to make sure is all?:)

DesertFox4
01-23-2009, 11:38 AM
As moderator this thread will not continue if personal attacks are posted. Please re-read the guidelines for Kitfox and aviation related posts. Now shake hands you two and lets get back to fun topics. You both have much to contribute that others will benefit from and enjoy reading.;)

paulc
01-23-2009, 03:26 PM
Steve nothing personal going on here.

This is a thread about radial options. Not about how wonderful Allbee's 912 Mk4 is. There are 1000's of those going around and plenty of threads pertaining to that option. I'm sure Allbee's flys just like all the rest of em.

Once on topic I'll check back in.

BTW. Joe, I just checked out your photo album, some great pics there, inspirational buddy!

DesertFox4
01-23-2009, 05:14 PM
Paulc , I am ok with people making comparisons on engines, props, avionics ect. and will allow a little ego a bragging into the posts as long as it is in fun however this is what gets my attention quickly:
Allbee, I hope you didn’t choose your wife using that philosophy, ouch! :). Even with a smiley face that seems personal. Now , back to radial engine equipped Kitfox's as they are yet a rarity and quite interesting.

Jfquebec
03-26-2013, 05:02 PM
Do you think guy's ,the kitfox with rotec are ok with ski or float???

Av8r3400
03-27-2013, 05:01 AM
The Rotec is very heavy and requires the use of a wood prop. Neither are good things on a float plane...

Jfquebec
03-28-2013, 02:33 AM
I dont think the wood propeller was a problem with protection on leading edge..
But for sure ,i love more a composite prop....for weight ..

paulc
04-01-2013, 05:17 AM
Weight is relative. The R2800 is about the same weight as an O-200 but dont forget the R2800 is powerful and geared to swing big props which are ideal for hauling off float planes.

I cant see the engine weight being an issue at all, on the other hand the fat guts on some of the pilots I see is more alarming to me!

Jenki
07-07-2016, 05:59 AM
Some update about Verner radial as topic:
Verner radials are not equipped by gearbox, bothe of them are direct driving propeller. The RPM is then 2300 maximum.

Verner Motor Scarlett 5SI 4 stroke/5 cylinder/air cooled
Maximum power: 83 HP (61 kW) @ 2200 RPM
Max. continued power: 78 HP (57 kW) @ 1900 RPM
Torque: 298 Nm (220 ft/lb) @ 1700 RPM
Weight: 69 kg (152 lbs)

Bore: 95 mm/ 3.74 inch
Stroke: 102 mm / 4.02 inch
Compression ratio: 1:7,3

Verner Motor Scarlett 7Hi 4 stroke/7 cylinder/air cooled
Maximum power: 117 HP (87 kW) @ 2300 RPM
Max. continued power:97 HP (71 kW) @ 2000 RPM
Torque: 363 Nm (268 ft/lb) @ 2300 RPM
Weight: 81 kg (178 lbs)
Bore: 95 mm/ 3.74 inch
Stroke: 90 mm / 3.54 inch
Compression ratio: 1:7,3

Verner Motor Scarlett 7Si
Maximum power: 137 HP (101 kW) @ 2200 RPM
Max. continued power: 110 HP (82 kW) @ 2000 RPM
Torque: 445 Nm (268 ft/lb) @ 2200 RPM
Weight: 83 kg (182 lbs
Bore: 95 mm/3.74 inch
Stroke: 102 mm /4.02 inch
Compression ratio: 1:7,3

Link to manufacture is here:
http://www.vernermotor.com/7H.html#

I hope to install one... maube suitable for Rebel.

I can't imagine such engine on my Stylus (sort of heritage KitFox and Avid), probably too big. But, one never know.