Kitfox Aircraft Stick and Rudder Stein Air Grove Aircraft TCW Technologies Dynon Avionics AeroLED MGL Avionics Leading Edge Airfoils Desser EarthX Batteries Garmin G3X Touch
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Vernet Scarlett 9S

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    6

    Default Vernet Scarlett 9S

    Time to get serious about building. At my age I get one shot at this. Whatever I build has to account for a little bit of everything I want in an airplane. That includes a radial engine. Non-negotiable. If I could build any kit-based STOL aircraft out there with no compromises it would probably be a Highlander, probably with Steve Henry's insane turbocharged Yamaha snowmobile engine, but I need quick and simple build AND a radial engine so all my itches get scratched. Obviously not the ideal bush plane, but that's how they did it in 1930. If it worked for those guys it'll work for me.

    Anyway, I'm less and less interested in a Rotec the more I read about the company. Especially as I've caught them badmouthing the non-geared Verner design based on arguments that I know to be invalid. (I understand the difference between horsepower and torque, lads.) I'm not impressed by the way the Rotec guys do business, frankly. If you have the goods you don't need to abuse the competition.

    I'm looking at the Verner Scarlett 9S specifically. Where the Rotec is geared the Verner is direct drive. 158 hp. TONS of torque. Lazy rpm. REALLY lazy normal cruise at a bit over 1800 rpm, with a high cruise at 2000 and max power at just 2400.

    Comparing against a Rotax 914 UL, just for kicks, the Verner is much more powerful and much heavier, but still within reason at 237 lbs. Power to weigh ratio is actually better for the Verner, but only slightly. Probably about sixes once an oil tank is included. That means a 100 pound higher payload for a 914 powered plane, but I can live with that.

    Verners were available with electronic fuel injection, but it was a very simple open-loop type that depended on a lot of tinkering and adjusting fuel tables. Verner has gone back to a carb because they were tired of trying to walk everyone through the process. I don't blame them.

    The Verner DOES have a geared "mixer" that has a modest supercharging effect.

    TBO is 1000 hours for the Verner vs. 2000 for the Rotax. However, the Rotax requires a lot more maintenance than the Verner, is a far more complex machine generally, and properly rebuilding one is beyond most owners. The Verner motor is a relatively simple, old-school radial aircraft engine.

    Thoughts? Seem like it would have reasonable STOL performance. I'm not looking to compete. Just to putt-putt around making cool noises. 158 hp with gigantic torque slinging a fat "paddle" prop ought to be plenty for a Kitfox, it seems to me. I would have to do something different about the prop, though. The Verner usually slings a LONG wooden club. Very efficient and takes advantage of all that low-rpm rumbling torque, but not ideal for a bush plane. It would need a 3-blade prop for sure.

    -mickey

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Steilacoom, WA
    Posts
    729

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    I'm glad I'm not the only weirdo doing this. I have a Verner Scarlett 7U on order, expected to deliver in July. I opted for the dual spark and the Marv Schebler carb (with mixture). As you mentioned, they aren't currently offering the fuel injection. I've already designed my engine mount and thought I would have to do something about the exhaust too, but Verner tells me it will come with exhaust.
    sideview for paintscheme planning 3.jpg
    My lame rendering of what my plane will look like through phase 1. I will eventually come up with either a speed ring or bump cowl. Or I may just get used to it the way it is. I'm planning on a 78" two blade prop, but that may change before I send money to anyone. This video is from Culver prop and she has already quote me a 78x53 that will work. My 150hp Citabria swings a 72x54 so the Verner should have some pretty good thrust for takeoff and climb.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN6yUeRkvM8

    You should be able to find Ted Meyer online, who is installing a Scarlett 9 on a plane that previously had a Rotec. If you can't find him and need his contact information just let me know. He does have a composite 3 blade on the 9U.

    I wouldn't sweat the 1000 hour TBO. It's a place holder until more engines are out there putting in the hours. It's also going to be very easy to overhaul. The cylinder heads are off of a Honda generator and are something like $100 complete with valves.

    The 7 cylinder will be lighter than a 914, but heavier than a 912 so I'm not worried about the weight.
    Kitfox 5 (under construction)
    Commercial SE/ME, CFII

  3. #3
    Senior Member jiott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,959

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    Sounds to me that the final performance of your 158 hp radial will be roughly the same (maybe SLIGHTLY better) than the 115 hp Rotax 914. Too bad all that extra weight won't do more for you, except burn more fuel. Also I don't agree at all that the Rotax requires a lot more maintenance. I do my own Rotax maintenance so I know exactly what's required, and I fly with a buddy with a radial engine and I see first hand what his engine requires. You asked for thoughts, so here's mine.
    Jim Ott
    Portland, OR
    Kitfox SS7 flying
    Rotax 912ULS

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    Quote Originally Posted by jiott View Post
    Sounds to me that the final performance of your 158 hp radial will be roughly the same (maybe SLIGHTLY better) than the 115 hp Rotax 914. Too bad all that extra weight won't do more for you, except burn more fuel. Also I don't agree at all that the Rotax requires a lot more maintenance. I do my own Rotax maintenance so I know exactly what's required, and I fly with a buddy with a radial engine and I see first hand what his engine requires. You asked for thoughts, so here's mine.
    You know what saves even more fuel? Not flying.

    It's being built strictly for my own entertainment, and I want a radial. I do not care at all about the fuel burn, to be completely honest. It's a hobby. Half the point is to have an excuse to own a radial. For similar reasons my favorite gun is my cap and ball black powder revolver. Cleaning it afterward is half the fun. My carry pistol is a Sig, but it's strictly utilitarian. Not much fun. I like smoke, noise and filth.

    As noted below the Verner uses cylinder heads from a Honda generator. They are about $100 each COMPLETE, including valves. That's $700 to $900 for a top-end overhaul with brand new heads and valves. I haven't priced Rotax but I suspect it might be slightly more.

    I'm not afraid of maintenance. But the Verner is dead simple. The Rotax is not. And I'm not talking about maintenance anyway. I'm talking about overhaul. Thank you for your input.

    -mickey

    p.s. Answered my own question. "2/3" cylinder heads for the 914 go for about $1500 each, and there are two of them. So.....$3000 for incomplete vs. $700 or $900 for complete. And you can bolt them on the radial in a couple of hours. Tough choice.
    Last edited by MBitsko; 02-13-2021 at 11:31 PM.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    Good to see I'm not the only one. I think kit builders are kind of the lunatic fringe anyway, and we must be the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe But I have no problem with that.

    I anticipate building a bump cowl. The good news is with a radial a cowl is really just for looks anyway. These planes are too slow for "slippery" to matter. I do want to cover up the more vulnerable bits.

    I might also put together a closed-loop injection system. Again, just because I can. I understand why they ditched the F.I. The simpler the system the more difficult it is to set up. Open-loop requires a LOT of tinkering. The system cannot "learn".

    A major selling point to me is that Kitfox already supports radials. Not this one specifically, but radials.

    What is your reasoning for the 7 vs. the 9? Besides cost, obviously.

    -mickey

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    The power to weight ratio of the 7 is almost identical to the 9 and costs $7000 less. You may have sold me.

    My understanding is that these Verner engines, with their ridiculous low RPM torque, punch way above their weight class. Max takeoff power for the 7 is 124 hp. Plenty for a Kitfox.

    Like I said: I'm not building a competition plane. If I get off the ground in 50 feet instead of 30 is that really a problem?

    I also like the simplicity of operation. They don't even have a scavenge pump. Gravity feed down to the sump. Gravity does not break down.

    -mickey

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    469

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    I am with you on the love for radials (and guns that make noise and smoke)! I have 3, yes 3, Murphy Rebels and I was planning on putting a radial on the one that I have the least built. The Rebel reminds me of a down scaled DH Beaver, one of my all time favorite planes. Having something that looks and sounds like the Beaver would be awesome!

    In all honesty, probably never get it built, heck I'm just about to get finished with one and time is going by faster than I can build. Time to unload some projects and enjoy flying more.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    I've thought seriously about a Rebel kit. Might still do it, though I'm pretty sold on the Kitfox at this point. Someone did build a Rebel radial years ago with an early Rotec. It was pretty glorious. I do want to keep it Sport Pilot eligible, though, to lengthen the time I can fly. I don't think a Rebel can do that. Maybe I'm wrong.

    -mickey

    p.s. Unfortunately Murphy doesn't offer a plane optimized for U.S. Sport Pilot. The Rebel is too heavy. The Renegade is unnecessarily tiny and light, and is designed around a 2-stroke Rotax. So Kitfox it is.
    Last edited by MBitsko; 02-14-2021 at 02:04 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    469

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    Quote Originally Posted by MBitsko View Post
    I've thought seriously about a Rebel kit. Might still do it, though I'm pretty sold on the Kitfox at this point. Someone did build a Rebel radial years ago with an early Rotec. It was pretty glorious. I do want to keep it Sport Pilot eligible, though, to lengthen the time I can fly. I don't think a Rebel can do that. Maybe I'm wrong.

    -mickey

    p.s. Unfortunately Murphy doesn't offer a plane optimized for U.S. Sport Pilot. The Rebel is too heavy. The Renegade is unnecessarily tiny and light, and is designed around a 2-stroke Rotax. So Kitfox it is.
    Just typed a long reply and lost it...argh!!

    Again, Rebel can be built LSA. Several flying with the Rotax and I have friend building one with an O-320. Builder sets the weight so his will probably be a single seater.

    Hopefully the MOSAIC will be implemented by the time you finish your build and the weight limit will be changed.

    Unfortunately, if you really crunch the numbers, there aren't many LSA planes that will carry full fuel, pilot and passenger without going over GW. I'm talking real numbers here, not the standard FAA '170' pounder, but the average guy is probably closer to 200.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Stansbury Park, UT
    Posts
    6

    Default Re: Vernet Scarlett 9S

    Quote Originally Posted by WWhunter View Post
    Just typed a long reply and lost it...argh!!

    Again, Rebel can be built LSA. Several flying with the Rotax and I have friend building one with an O-320. Builder sets the weight so his will probably be a single seater.

    Hopefully the MOSAIC will be implemented by the time you finish your build and the weight limit will be changed.

    Unfortunately, if you really crunch the numbers, there aren't many LSA planes that will carry full fuel, pilot and passenger without going over GW. I'm talking real numbers here, not the standard FAA '170' pounder, but the average guy is probably closer to 200.
    As long as it can realistically operate as a light sport I'm fine with it. Not many ramp inspections out in the desert.

    -mickey

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •